Remote visits for people with multiple sclerosis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Austria: The TELE MS randomized controlled trial

Patrick Altmann, Fritz Leutmezer, Markus Ponleitner, Dominik Ivkic, Nik Krajnc, Paulus Stefan Rommer, Thomas Berger, Gabriel Bsteh, Patrick Altmann, Fritz Leutmezer, Markus Ponleitner, Dominik Ivkic, Nik Krajnc, Paulus Stefan Rommer, Thomas Berger, Gabriel Bsteh

Abstract

Introduction: Continuous monitoring is the hallmark of managing chronic disease. Multiple sclerosis (MS), in particular, requires patients to visit their treating neurologists typically twice a year, at least. In that respect, the COVID-19 pandemic made us rethink our communication strategies. This study determined satisfaction with remote visits for people with MS (pwMS) by comparing non-inferiority to conventional visits.

Methods: TELE MS was a randomized controlled trial that was open to any person with MS. We randomized a volunteer sample of 45 patients. We compared satisfaction with remote visits (via phone or via videochat) with conventional outpatient visits. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction determined by the Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire (TMPQ, min: 17 and max: 85 points) with the hypothesis of non-inferiority of televisits to conventional visits. Physician satisfaction measured on the PPSM score (Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Monitoring, min: 5 and max: 25 points) was the secondary endpoint.

Results: The trial met both endpoints. Mean (SD) TMPQ scores in the individual groups were 58 (6.7) points for conventional visits, 65 (7.5) points for phone visits, and 62 (5.5) points for video visits. Physician satisfaction over the whole cohort was similarly high. Median (range) PPSM scores were 23 (16-25) for the whole cohort, 19 (16-25) for conventional visits, 25 (17-25) for phone visits, and 25 (16-25) for video visits.

Conclusions: Televisits in multiple sclerosis yield a high level of satisfaction for both patients and treating physicians. This concept for remote patient monitoring adopted during the current pandemic may be communicable to other chronic diseases as well. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04838990.

Keywords: Multiple sclerosis; remote monitoring; satisfaction; teleconsultation; telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© The Author(s) 2022.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Study overview of the TELE MS RCT. MSIS-29 – Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale, MS – Multiple sclerosis, MSologist – Neurologist treating persons with MS, PPSM – Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Monitoring, RCT – Randomized Controlled Trial, TMPQ – Telemedicine Perception Questionnaire.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
CONSORT flow diagram for the TELE MS trial. CONSORT flow diagram showing participant flow through each stage of the TELE MS randomized open controlled trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up and final analysis).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Patient satisfaction with the study visit. This box and whiskers plot shows scores on the TMPQ scale (y-axis, higher scores indicate greater satisfaction) for the three study groups and the whole cohort (x-axis). Boxes indicate the interquartile range and whiskers min-max. TMPQ – Telemedicine perception questionnaire.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Physician satisfaction with the study visit. This box and whiskers plot shows scores on the PPMS scale (y-axis, higher scores indicate greater satisfaction) for the three study groups and the whole cohort (x-axis). Boxes indicate the interquartile range and whiskers min-max. PPSM – Physician and Patient Satisfaction with Monitoring.
Figure 5a-d.
Figure 5a-d.
Patient characteristics in groups with satisfaction below and above this study's median TMPQ score. This box and whiskers plots illustrates patient characteristics (y-axis) along scores on the TMPQ scale (x-axis). In case there were no ourliers, boxes indicate the interquartile range and whiskers the min-max. Outliers, if existent, are indicated by black dots and, in that case, whiskers indicate values ranging from 1.5 times the IQR from the first and third quartile. TMPQ – Telemedicine perception questionnaire. Figure 5e-f Satisfaction score (TMPQ) in relation to change in the MSIS score. This box and whiskers plots illustrates patient characteristics (y-axis) along scores on the TMPQ scale (x-axis). Boxes indicate the interquartile range and whiskers min-max. TMPQ – Telemedicine perception questionnaire, MSIS – Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale.

References

    1. Browne P, Chandraratna D, Angood C, et al. Atlas of multiple sclerosis 2013: a growing global problem with widespread inequity. Neurology 2014; 83: 1022–1024. [published Online First: 2014/09/10].
    1. Dobson R, Giovannoni G. Multiple sclerosis - a review. Eur J Neurol 2019; 26: 27–40. [published Online First: 2018/10/10].
    1. Cree BA, Gourraud PA, Oksenberg JR, et al. Long-term evolution of multiple sclerosis disability in the treatment era. Ann Neurol 2016; 80: 499–510. [published Online First: 2016/07/28].
    1. Schwamm LH, Erskine A, Licurse A. A digital embrace to blunt the curve of COVID19 pandemic. NPJ digital Medicine 2020; 3(1): 1–3.
    1. Bashshur R, Shannon G, Krupinski E, et al. The taxonomy of telemedicine. Telemedicine and e-Health 2011; 17: 484–494. [published Online First: 2011/07/02].
    1. Wootton R. Twenty years of telemedicine in chronic disease management--an evidence synthesis. J Telemed Telecare 2012; 18: 211–220. [published Online First: 2012/06/08].
    1. Altmann P, Hinterberger W, Leutmezer F, et al. The smartphone app haMSter for tracking patient-reported outcomes in people with multiple sclerosis: protocol for a pilot study. JMIR Res Protoc 2021; 10: e25011. [published Online First: 2021/05/08].
    1. Graves JS, Montalban X. Biosensors to monitor MS activity. Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England 2020; 26: 605–608. [published Online First: 2020/01/23].
    1. Shaw MT, Best P, Frontario A, et al. Telerehabilitation benefits patients with multiple sclerosis in an urban setting. J Telemed Telecare 2021; 27: 39–45. [published Online First: 2019/07/17].
    1. Sola-Valls N, Blanco Y, Sepúlveda M, et al. Walking function in clinical monitoring of multiple sclerosis by telemedicine. J Neurol 2015; 262: 1706–1713. [published Online First: 2015/05/11].
    1. Stuart CM, Varatharaj A, Domjan J, et al. Physical activity monitoring to assess disability progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2020; 6: 2055217320975185. [published Online First: 2020/12/22].
    1. Robb JF, Hyland MH, Goodman AD. Comparison of telemedicine versus in-person visits for persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomized crossover study of feasibility, cost, and satisfaction. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019; 36: 101258.
    1. D’Haeseleer M, Eelen P, Sadeghi N, et al. Feasibility of real time internet-based teleconsultation in patients with multiple sclerosis: interventional pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22: e18178. [published Online First: 2020/05/25].
    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452. [published Online First: 1983/11/01].
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Research ed 2010; 340: c332. [published Online First: 2010/03/25].
    1. Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. The Lancet Neurology 2018; 17: 162–173. [published Online First: 2017/12/26].
    1. Lublin FD, Reingold SC, Cohen JA, et al. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: the 2013 revisions. Neurology 2014; 83: 278–286. [published Online First: 2014/05/30].
    1. Schäffler N, Schönberg P, Stephan J, et al. Comparison of patient-reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 2013; 128: 114–121. [published Online First: 2013/02/13].
    1. Lechner-Scott J, Kappos L, Hofman M, et al. Can the expanded disability Status scale be assessed by telephone? Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England 2003; 9: 154–159. [published Online First: 2003/04/24].
    1. Altmann P, Ivkic D, Ponleitner M, et al. Individual perception of telehealth: validation of a German translation of the telemedicine perception questionnaire and a derived short version. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 902.
    1. Demiris G, Speedie S, Finkelstein S. A questionnaire for the assessment of patients’ impressions of the risks and benefits of home telecare. J Telemed Telecare 2000; 6: 278–284. [published Online First: 2000/11/09].
    1. Lanska DJ. The history of reflex hammers. Neurology 1989; 39: 1542–1549. [published Online First: 1989/11/01].
    1. Chirra M, Marsili L, Wattley L, et al. Telemedicine in neurological disorders: opportunities and challenges. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health : the Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association 2019; 25: 541–550. [published Online First: 2018/08/24].
    1. Lai B, Chiu CY, Pounds E, et al. COVID-19 Modifications for remote teleassessment and teletraining of a complementary alternative medicine intervention for people with multiple sclerosis: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2020; 9: e18415. [published Online First: 2020/06/17].
    1. Plow M, Finlayson M, Liu J, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a telephone-delivered physical activity and fatigue self-management interventions in adults with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019; 100: 2006–2014. [published Online First: 2019/06/24].
    1. Moccia M, Lanzillo R, Brescia Morra V, et al. Assessing disability and relapses in multiple sclerosis on tele-neurology. Neurological Sciences : Official Journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology 2020; 41: 1369–1371. [published Online First: 2020/05/23].
    1. Toscano S, Patti F, Chisari CG, et al. Reliability of televisits for patients with mild relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the COVID-19 era. Neurological Sciences : Official Journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology 2022; 43: 2253–2261. [published Online First: 2022/01/13].
    1. Schriefer D, Haase R, Ettle B, et al. Patient- versus physician-reported relapses in multiple sclerosis: insights from a large observational study. Eur J Neurol 2020; 27: 2531–2538. [published Online First: 2020/07/10].
    1. Nowinski CJ, Miller DM, Cella D. Evolution of patient-reported outcomes and their role in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Neurotherapeutics : the Journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics 2017; 14: 934–944. [published Online First: 2017/09/16].
    1. Newton C, Nordin A, Rolland P, et al. British Gynaecological cancer society recommendations and guidance on patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer 2020; 30: 95.
    1. Moccia M. Teleconsultation will replace most face-to-face interactions in the multiple sclerosis clinic – No. Multiple Sclerosis Journal 2020; 27: 176–177.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다