Tag Archives: disability progression

Suicidal ideation and suicide in MS

Mental health problems and suicide are the underbelly of MS, the elephant in the consulting room. I have attempted to discuss these topics in a way that is not too dark, based on data from a 2026 systematic review. Please be aware, however, that the content may still be upsetting.

Key points

  • The suicide rate among people with MS is roughly twice that of the general population.
  • Several biological, psychological and social factors contribute to suicide risk:
    • depression and anxiety: a biological basis for these comorbidities exists in MS
    • MS disease-related factors: increased disability, disease duration and progression; life-changing symptoms
    • socio-demographic factors: age, male sex, living alone, education level
    • social and existential factors: loneliness, social exclusion and low perceived social support; loss of purpose and meaning; financial strain; fear of stigma.
  • Thoughts of ending one’s life – ‘suicidal ideation’ – precede suicide attempts; effective screening tools exist, are quick to complete and can identify patients at risk of suicide.
  • Systematic screening is not optional but should be part of the basic standard of care.
  • Suicide prevention in MS requires participation by the clinic, the patient (and their family) and the health system.
  • If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please reach out for help. Support groups are available.

The problem we avoid talking about …

MS is a chronic, unpredictable and often disabling neurological condition. People with MS know this, and as a result they carry a psychological burden that is usually overlooked in a 15-minute annual outpatient appointment. Mental health problems and suicide are the elephant in the MS consulting room. They sit quietly alongside the disability progression conversation, the drug treatment switch discussion, and the “How are things at home?” question that healthcare professionals (HCPs) often forget to ask.

How common are suicidal ideation and suicide in MS?

Suicidal ideation – thoughts of ending one’s life, with or without a plan – is the single most important precursor to suicide attempts, and death by suicide among people with MS is far more common than most HCPs appreciate. A landmark Canadian study in 1991 found that suicide was the third most common cause of death reported in MS clinics.1 The proportion of deaths due to suicide among people with MS (15%) was 7.5 times the proportion in an age-matched general population (2%).

More recent work suggests that the suicide rate among people with MS is roughly twice that of the general population.2 A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of suicidal ideation in MS draws on 18 studies and more than 8,000 people with MS to provide a picture of how common it is, what drives it and where the gaps are in MS care.2 From these combined data, the authors estimate that one in five people (20%) in an MS clinic waiting room has considered suicide. This is higher than the 13% figure from a 2020 meta-analysis,3 and the authors suggest two plausible explanations:

  • an expanding evidence base that now includes more diverse settings
  • a real rise in suicidal ideation rates – perhaps linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, growing geopolitical instability and reduced stigma around reporting mental health symptoms.

Individual study prevalence ranged dramatically, from 8% in a Canadian cohort to 36% in an Iranian cohort. This is probably telling us something important about how context, culture, income level and healthcare infrastructure shape suicide risk.

In most high-income countries, lifetime suicidal ideation prevalence in the general population is around 9–10%. The recent 20% figure in people with MS2 is therefore roughly double that seen in the background population – a finding echoed by many independent studies.

Regional and temporal patterns

In the 2026 review, subgroup analysis based on country income level reported a pooled suicidal ideation prevalence of 17% among the 14 high-income countries compared with 32% in the countries with ‘upper-middle’ incomes (three studies from Iran and one from Brazil).2 This aligns with what we know about mental health inequities more broadly – poverty, housing insecurity, financial strain, limited access to psychiatric services, and stigma all worsen outcomes in lower-resource settings. (Please note, the ‘upper-middle income’ data in this review came from just two countries; therefore, we should be cautious about extrapolating to sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia or Latin America as a whole.)

Suicidal ideation prevalence figures published between 19911 and 20262 from many studies conducted across different regions of the world vary widely and may appear inconsistent. The 2026 figure of 20% still means, however, that roughly one in five people with MS has active suicidal thoughts, and global crises in the last five years may be masking an underlying deterioration that will only become visible in the next generation of studies.

Limitations of study data

The 2026 review has limitations that need to be acknowledged. Study methodologies vary widely: suicidal ideation is measured with different instruments and at different time points; diagnostic criteria for MS are inconsistently reported; variability between studies is high. The ‘20% prevalence’ figure from 2026 is therefore an estimate with uncertainty. What is not uncertain is that suicidal ideation is substantially more common in MS than in the general population, and that it is driven by modifiable factors and hence is preventable. 

Who is at risk of suicidal ideation among people with MS

No single risk factor predicts suicidal ideation in isolation. Suicide is the final common pathway of several biological, psychological and social factors. Consistent drivers can be grouped into four domains.2

1. Psychiatric comorbidity: depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety are the most consistently reported risk factors for suicidal ideation in MS.2 Depression affects up to 50% of people with MS at some point, far exceeding the 14–21% figure in the general population. This matters because depression in MS is both more common and more severe than in the general population, and it is driven by a mixture of:

  • neuroinflammation and hormonal factors (depression in MS is not simply a ‘reaction’ to having MS – it has a biological basis)
  • lesion location, particularly in limbic and frontal lobe/cortex pathways
  • disease-modifying therapy (DMT) side effects (particularly with interferon therapy)
  • the psychological burden of uncertainty, disability and loss of role.

Anxiety, which is often under-recognised and under-treated in MS, frequently coexists with depression and independently elevates suicidal ideation risk.

2. Disease-related factors

Several disease features align with suicidal ideation across studies.

  • Greater disability – measured both by clinician-rated EDSS (Expanded Disability Status Scale) scores and by self-reported physical impairment. The latter may be a stronger predictor than EDSS scores, because it captures the subjective experience of living with impairment.
  • Longer disease duration – though this relationship is complex. Study results vary, suggesting that some patients adapt psychologically over time, probably depending how well they adjust to living with MS.
  • Progressive MS – higher suicidal ideation rates are found in people with more advanced MS when compared with the earlier relapsing–remitting phase. Many HCPs and healthcare systems think that once someone with MS becomes disabled, the disease is not modifiable. I hope landmark studies like ocrelizumab in PPMS (O’HAND study), siponimod in SPMS (EXPAND study) and tolebrutinib in non-relapsing SPMS (HERCULES study) change this perspective. 
  • Specific symptoms – fatigue, sleep disturbance, spasms, bladder and bowel difficulties, and speech and swallowing problems also correlate with suicidal ideation. Together, these symptoms erode quality of life.

3. Sociodemographic factors

The evidence here is more mixed.

  • Age – findings are inconsistent. Some studies identify older patients (≥ 65 years) as higher risk; others find younger people with MS more vulnerable. Both extremes carry risk for different reasons; younger recently diagnosed patients face a challenge to their identity and loss of envisioned future; older patients face accumulated disability and social isolation.
  • Male sex – some (but not all) studies find men at higher risk, consistent with general population data on completed suicide.
  • Unmarried status and living alone are both associated with increased suicidal ideation in multiple studies.
  • Education level – most studies suggest that higher educational attainment is protective (better health literacy, coping strategies, economic resources); one Iranian study found the opposite, perhaps reflecting unmet expectations or awareness of prognosis.

4. Social and existential factors

This domain is the easiest to miss in a busy MS clinic but most important to address.

  • Low perceived social support, from family, friends and significant others, is a consistent risk factor.
  • Loneliness and social exclusion – ‘feeling socially excluded’ strongly correlates with suicidal ideation.
  • Hopelessness and loss of purpose – perceived loss of control, loss of masculinity/femininity and failure to achieve an expected role contribute psychologically to suicidal ideation.
  • Challenges to faith or spiritual meaning – having a sense of purpose, comfort in faith, and church membership can all be helpful and protective (in those for whom they are important).  
  • Financial strain and anticipated stigma are particularly important in lower-resource settings.

Screening for suicidal ideation in the clinic

If 20% of people with MS experience suicidal ideation but only a small fraction volunteer it spontaneously, systematic screening is not optional but should be part of the basic standard of care. Effective screening tools exist, and they are quick to complete.

The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)

The PHQ-9 is the most practical and widely validated mental health tool for neurological conditions, including MS; it is particularly suited to detecting suicidal ideation. Item 9 of this 9-item self-report depression screen specifically asks about thoughts of self-harm or being better off dead. It takes under 3 minutes to complete and can be done in the waiting room or electronically before the clinic. Scores above 10 indicate clinically significant depression warranting action. A positive response to item 9 should trigger a suicide risk assessment. It could be argued that every MS clinic should administer the PHQ-9 at least annually, and at every unscheduled visit where there has been a relapse, a significant disability progression, a DMT change or a major life event.

The Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation (BSI)

The BSI is a 20-item instrument designed specifically for suicide risk. It is more detailed than the PHQ-9 and is better suited to psychiatric follow-up than to first-line screening.

The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)

The BDI-II is a broader 21-item depression measure that includes a suicide item. This is often used in research settings but takes longer to complete than the PHQ-9 in a clinic.

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

The HADS is my favoured option that captures both anxiety and depression domains. It does not, however, include a direct suicide item, so a ‘positive’ (i.e. high: 11−21) HADS score should always prompt a follow-up suicide-specific question.

What should you be asked if a screen is positive?

Clinicians often feel awkward asking directly about suicide. Evidence is unambiguous that asking about suicide does not increase the risk. A graded approach works well:

  1. ‘Have you had thoughts that life isn’t worth living, or that you’d be better off dead?’
  2. ‘Have you had thoughts of harming yourself?’
  3. ‘Have you thought about how you might do it?’ (plan)
  4. ‘Do you have access to the means?’ (access)
  5. ‘Have you taken any steps or made any preparations?’ (intent)

Presence of a plan, access to means, or preparatory behaviour indicates a high imminent risk and demands urgent psychiatric referral – ideally, the same day.

Suicide prevention: what can we do?

Suicide prevention in MS operates at three levels: the clinic, the patient and the system.

At the clinical level

  • Screen systematically. A good MS service should embed PHQ-9 into routine MS review and not rely on patients volunteering suicidal ideation. If I were setting up an MS clinic now, I would include PHQ-9 in routine screening and add it to the annual questionnaire that patients must complete before each clinic visit. 
  • Treat depression and anxiety aggressively. Depression and anxiety are the dominant modifiable risk factors. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs: sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram) are first-line, well-tolerated drugs and have no meaningful interaction with current DMTs. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) – including web-based models – has a good evidence base in MS. We should reject the dogma that ‘of course they’re depressed, they have MS’ as a reason not to proactively manage depression.
  • Address symptom burden. Fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, bladder dysfunction and spasticity are not just quality-of-life issues – they are suicide risk factors that need to be treated. Please make sure that your MS care team provides relevant support. 
  • Be alert at transition points. Diagnosis, relapse, disability milestones (losing the ability to walk, work or drive), DMT failure, and being labelled as having secondary progressive MS are all periods of elevated risk. 
  • Assess social support explicitly. Who do you live with? Who helps you? Who would you call at 3 am? Treat loneliness and social isolation as vital potential danger signs.
  • Restrict means where appropriate. Safe storage of medications, particularly in patients with large quantities of prescribed opioids, benzodiazepines or anticholinergics, can save lives. This conversation needs to be had with the patient, their partner and their family. 
  • Document and communicate risk. A named crisis contact, a safety plan, and timely communication with the GP or primary care physician should be standard practice.

At the patient and family level

  • Psychoeducation. Many people with MS don’t know that depression is a common and treatable part of MS – they assume sadness and hopelessness are inevitable. Naming and confronting depression and suicidal ideation helps.
  • Normalise help-seeking. The stigma of psychiatric care in MS remains real. Framing mental health as part of MS care, not something separate, reduces that barrier.
  • Involve family. Family members are often the first to notice a change – withdrawal, giving away possessions, changes in sleep. They need to be taught about what to watch for.
  • Build purpose and connection. Peer support groups (e.g. MS Society, Shift.ms, MS Trust, MS International Federation resources, National MS Society [US]), vocational rehabilitation, social prescribing, church attendance, volunteering and hobbies all buffer against hopelessness. Having a purpose in life and being productive reduce the likelihood of suicidal ideation.
  • Safety planning. A written safety plan – warning signs, coping strategies, people to call, reasons for living, means restriction – is a simple but evidence-based self-administered intervention. The Stanley-Brown Safety Plan is freely available online.

At the system level

  • Integrate mental health into MS services. A neuropsychologist or clinical psychologist embedded in an MS service should not be a luxury; it is the minimum standard for a condition where one in two patients develops depression. That said, most NHS MS clinics don’t employ a neuropsychologist, and referring people with MS for assessment and management takes time.
  • Address inequity. The doubled suicidal ideation prevalence in upper-middle-income countries2 is not inevitable. It reflects under-resourced mental health services, stigma, and financial barriers to care – all modifiable at a policy level.
  • Research under-represented populations. The Bazmi review2 of 14 high-income and three upper-middle-income countries openly discusses its limitations: it includes no data from low-income countries and none from most of Asia, Africa or Latin America, beyond a single Brazilian study. MS care cannot be evidence-based at a global level if the evidence is dominated by findings from high-income countries. More research is needed. 

The bottom line

If you are an HCP and are reading this, please remember that roughly one in five of your MS patients has had thoughts of suicide. Most of them have not told you. The dominant drivers – depression, anxiety, disability, symptom burden, loneliness, hopelessness – are either treatable or modifiable, and the screening tools are simple, brief and validated. Although suicidal ideation is common in people with MS, it is driven by modifiable factors and hence is preventable. Suicide in MS is not inevitable. It is, however, easy to miss. Every person with MS deserves a clinician who asks directly, listens without flinching, and acts on what they hear.

If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please reach out for help.

In the UK, Samaritans are available 24/7 on 116 123.

In the US, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available by call or text.

In other countries, the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) maintains a directory of crisis services at iasp.info/crisis-centres-helplines/

You are not alone, and help is available.

References

  1. Sadovnick AD, et al. Cause of death in patients attending multiple sclerosis clinics. Neurology 1991;41:1193. doi.org/10.1212/WNL.41.8.1193.
  2. Bazmi E, et al. Global prevalence and risk factors of suicidal ideation in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Sci Rep 2026;9:e72331. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.72331.
  3. Kouchaki E, et al. Prevalence of suicidal ideation in multiple sclerosis patients: meta‐analysis of international studies. Soc Work Pub Health 2020;35:655–63.

What are the attributes of the specific DMTs?

Multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment has evolved rapidly, with 11 classes of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) now available in the UK. I will summarise them briefly and explain how they fit within a treatment paradigm for effective and safe use.

Maintenance therapies versus immune reconstitution: what’s the difference?

There is a divide between the two main treatment philosophies: maintenance ̶ escalation versus immune reconstitution therapies (IRTs).

An IRT is given as a short course – a one-off treatment in the case of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) or intermittently for alemtuzumab, cladribine or mitoxantrone. IRTs are not given continuously, and additional courses are given only if inflammatory activity recurs. IRTs can induce long-term remission and, in some cases, potentially a cure.

Maintenance therapies, by comparison, are given continuously without an interruption in dosing (‘continuous’ administration may be daily, one or more times weekly, monthly or even once every few months). Although maintenance therapies can induce long-term remission, they cannot, by definition, result in a cure. The recurrence or continuation of inflammatory activity indicates a suboptimal response to treatment and typically requires a treatment switch. Ideally, this switch should be an escalation to a more effective class of DMT.

An article in our list of key questions, entitled How do I want my MS to be treated?, provides a more detailed comparison of maintenance and IRT therapies, including frequency of administration, efficacy, risks, use in pregnancy, vaccine response and potential for a cure.

The DMTs currently licensed in the UK (in August 2024) are listed in the table under the relevant category.

Disease-modifying therapies for MS licensed in the UK. *Please note, Bonspri is available in other markets but not the UK.

How effective are the different DMTs?

The measures used to assess the effectiveness of a DMT include its ability to reduce or prevent relapses, focal inflammatory activity (that is, new or enlarging lesions) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and disability progression. Additional factors that can help to assess the relative efficacy of DMTs include the proportion of clinical trial subjects who experience improvement in disability and the impact of the treatment on brain volume loss.

The MS-Selfie InfoCards are an easy-to-use resource to help people with MS compare the key features of each DMT. They contain bite-sized information designed to aid treatment choices and an overview of the key aspects of each DMT.

Efficacy of the licensed DMTs for MS can be visualised as pyramid, with the moderately effective treatments at the bottom and the more effective approaches at the top. What determines the most appropriate DMT efficacy level for an individual depends on several factors, such as baseline prognostic profile, family planning requirements, local or national treatment guidelines, socioeconomic factors, consideration of any co-existing illnesses, cognitive impairment, risk aversion and lifestyle issues.

Pyramid format updated 180625 SS

UK licensed DMTs for MS, in ascending order of efficacy.
HSCT/AHSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation/autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

What is the goal of treatment? Introducing NEIDA as a target

In the past, we used no evident disease activity (NEDA) as a treatment target. ‘Disease activity’ included progression or disease worsening independent of relapse activity (termed smouldering MS). Although some of the more effective DMTs may modify this stage of the disease, many neurologists feel uncomfortable switching or stopping a DMT based simply on smouldering MS disease activity. 

Relapses and ongoing focal MRI activity are associated with a worse short-term to intermediate-term prognosis. These observations have led to the increasing adoption of ‘no evident inflammatory disease activity’ (NEIDA) as a new treatment target. For more information about treatment targets, please see the article in our key questions, Do I understand the concepts of treat-2-target and NEDA?

Many healthcare professionals (HCPs) remain sceptical of using NEIDA as a treatment target, fearing that this could lead to more people with MS being on ‘riskier’ high-efficacy therapies. However, achieving long-term remission, or NEIDA, is a well-established treatment target in other autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. People with MS treated-to-target of NEIDA from the outset do better than those whose treatment is escalated following breakthrough disease (at a clinical or subclinical/MRI level)1. I would, therefore, strongly encourage people with MS and their HCPs to adopt NEIDA as an initial treatment target.

Flipping the pyramid

The effectiveness, or relative effectiveness, of individual DMTs becomes less critical in the context of a treatment target of NEIDA. Choosing a DMT with a lower efficacy rate simply means that a greater proportion of treated people with MS will need to be switched to higher efficacy therapies over time to achieve NEIDA. We refer to the latter of these three approaches – starting with high-efficacy treatment – as flipping the pyramid. In recent trials of alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and ublituximab, people with MS randomised to 2 years of lower efficacy DMTs (interferon-beta-1a or teriflunomide) had poorer outcomes than those receiving highly active therapy from the outset. Real-world data from registries also support this; groups of people with MS with delayed access to high-efficacy DMTs did worse than those who received high-efficacy treatments early.1,2

Horizontal versus vertical switching

If we consider the conventional step care paradigm, people with MS who switch horizontally from interferon-beta to glatiramer acetate, or vice-versa (i.e. from one moderate efficacy DMT to another moderate efficacy DMT) do less well than those who switch vertically to fingolimod, a highly effective DMT. Similarly, people with MS escalating to natalizumab, a very high-efficacy DMT, do better than those being escalated to the less effective, but still high-efficacy, DMT fingolimod. 

Continuous and intermittent immunosuppression

Another useful way of classifying DMTs is whether they are immunosuppressive, that is, they reduce the activation, or effectiveness, of the immune system. Drug regulators stipulate that a drug may be classified as immunosuppressive if it (1) causes significant lymphopaenia (low lymphocyte count) or leukopenia (low white blood cell count), (2) is associated with opportunistic infections, (3) reduces the antibody and immune response to vaccines and (4) increases the risk of secondary malignancies.

The duration and intensity of immunosuppression further determine the risks. For example, short-term or intermittent immunosuppression associated with IRTs front-loads the risks, which are substantially lower once the immune system has reconstituted itself. In comparison, long-term continuous or persistent immunosuppression, which occurs with some of the maintenance DMTs, accumulates problems over time, particularly opportunistic infections and secondary malignancies. You can read more detail on this topic in the key question How immunosuppressed am I? The following table summarises the main attributes of intermittent and persistent immunosuppression.

How immunosuppressed are you table updated format 180625 SS

The main characteristics of continuous (persistent) and short-term (intermittent) immunosuppression. Modified from Giovannoni, Curr Opin Neurol.2
AHSCT, autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.

Adverse effects, monitoring and risk reduction

The complications associated with immunosuppression vary from DMT to DMT. Each individual drug summary in the DMTs section of MS-Selfie contains detailed information about the main adverse events, key monitoring requirements, use (or contraindication) during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and response to vaccines. The MS-Selfie InfoCards provide bite-sized summaries of several practical aspects, including side effects, to enable easy comparison of any treatments you are considering; some of this information is collated below for easy reference.

Short-term versus long-term adverse effects

Each drug has been given scores from 1 to 10 based on published analyses of its short-term and long-term side effects. Short-term refers to side effects that emerge when a treatment is started and decrease in severity or disappear within days or weeks. A well-known example of short-term side effects on starting interferon-beta is flu-like symptoms that typically abate within 4 ̶ 8 weeks.

A long-term side effect persists for months or doesn’t disappear on continuing the DMT. Examples include intermittent but persistent flushing after taking dimethyl fumarate, or low B lymphocyte counts with anti-CD20 therapies that may lead to low antibody or immunoglobulin levels (hypogammaglobulinaemia).

A low score denotes few or rare side effects; a high score denotes many or frequent side effects. The score does not correlate to a percentage. More information can be found in each drug summary and the manufacturer’s Summary of Product Characteristics.

Scores for short-term and long-term side effects assigned to the individual DMTs summarised in the MS-Selfie InfoCards, based on a published network meta-analysis.3
Alem, alemtuzumab; GA, glatiramer acetate; HSCT, haematopoietic stem cell transplantation; IFN-beta; interferon-beta; Nat, natalizumab.

Monitoring and risk reduction

Numerous tests are carried out at the start of treatment, and ongoing monitoring is required for many factors, to reduce the risk from adverse events. The key question, How can I reduce my chances of adverse events on specific DMTs?, explains what needs to be done at the start of DMT administration (baseline) and during subsequent monitoring. The specifics vary from DMT to DMT; please refer to the individual summaries for details such as baseline tests, follow-up, infection prevention, cancer risk, pregnancy, breastfeeding and vaccination. It is important to remember that all licensed MS DMTs have had a thorough risk ̶ benefit assessment, and their benefits are considered to outweigh the potential risks.

Administration and other practical considerations

Routes and frequency of administration

The MS-Selfie InfoCards contain a symbol for each DMT, showing how it is administered. Some DMTs are available in more than one formulation (e.g. tablets and injection). The frequency of administration varies greatly from DMT to DMT; please consult the relevant summary in the DMTs section and discuss your preferences and priorities with your MS HCP.

The route of administration for each drug in the MS-Selfie InfoCards is clearly identified by the relevant symbol. (If a DMT is available in more than one formulation, there is a separate card for each delivery route.)

Number of clinic visits

It may be important for you to consider the frequency of clinic visits. This will depend on factors such as the delivery route of your DMT, the monitoring requirements of the drug regulators and the risk of specific side effects. The table below summarises the assessments from the MS-Selfie InfoCards. This is another factor to consider in discussions with your MS HCPs about the most appropriate DMT for you.

Conclusions

People with MS must understand the objectives of MS treatments and the different treatment strategies currently available to achieve these objectives. Although the MS therapeutic landscape is complex and hence may seem overwhelming, framing the choices using a relatively simple construct should help each individual to make informed decisions about managing their MS. MS-Selfie aims to guide you in the process of deciding on the most appropriate therapeutic strategy and specific DMT for treating your disease.

References

  1. Rotstein D, et al. Association of No Evidence of Disease Activity with no long-term disability progression in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2022;99:e209̶ ̶ 20.
  2. Giovannoni G. Disease-modifying treatments for early and advanced multiple sclerosis: a new treatment paradigm. Curr Opin Neurol 2018;31:233 ̶ 43.
  3. Samjoo IA, et al. Efficacy classification of modern therapies in multiple sclerosis. J Comp Eff Res 2021;10:495–507.