The study cohort comprised 2,458 adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis drawn from the Swedish MS Registry who initiated either natalizumab or rituximab between 2010 and 2024 and had at least two on-treatment SDMT assessments. Natalizumab initiators were tested about twice as often as rituximab initiators — an average of 1.6 versus 0.8 tests per year. That contrast in testing cadence is a concrete, measurable difference in the exposure to repeated cognitive assessment that the investigators examined as a potential driver of group-level SDMT differences.
Unadjusted model predictions showed a substantial advantage for natalizumab over rituximab on the SDMT. At 3 years the predicted natalizumab-minus-rituximab difference was 7.0 points (95% CI 5.7–8.3). After the authors sequentially adjusted models and incorporated cumulative test number as a covariate, the 3-year difference decreased to 1.6 points (0.7–2.6). Early on, at 1 year, the predicted difference moved from 4.4 points (3.3–5.4) in the unadjusted model to −0.3 (−1.2 to 0.6) after full adjustment. These shifts indicate that testing frequency accounted for much of the apparent advantage in processing-speed scores among natalizumab-treated patients.
The study team used mixed-effects models with restricted cubic spline functions of time to capture nonlinear SDMT trajectories during treatment. They sequentially adjusted covariates and explicitly modelled practice effects by including the log of cumulative test number. The source states this log cumulative test variable served as the practice-effect adjustment; no additional details on knot placement, random-effects structure, or other model diagnostics were provided in the source. The investigators therefore linked higher testing frequency to larger observed gains, and the analytic framework quantified how much of the between-drug difference persisted after accounting for repeated measurement.
Reported effect sizes came from model predictions rather than simple cross-sectional means. The unadjusted and adjusted point estimates at prespecified time frames illustrate how much the testing process influenced observed outcomes. At 3 years the adjusted difference (1.6 points) is markedly smaller than the unadjusted value (7.0 points). At 1 year the adjusted estimate actually crossed the null into a slight negative point estimate (−0.3), with confidence intervals spanning zero. The source did not report whether the residual adjusted difference meets any predefined thresholds for clinical relevance, and the authors characterized the remaining discrepancy as of uncertain clinical importance.
Data indicated that much of the natalizumab-associated advantage on SDMT could be attributed to more frequent testing and the attendant practice effects. The study team observed strong attenuation of group differences after accounting for cumulative tests, leaving a small residual difference whose practical significance is unclear from the reported analyses. The source did not provide mechanistic explanations, dosing or infusion schedules, or subgroup breakdowns that might further clarify whether a true treatment-specific cognitive effect remains. Investigators cautioned that real-world comparisons using repeated cognitive measures should explicitly adjust for testing frequency to avoid bias.
The Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm approved the study (2017/1378-31); individual informed consent was waived because the analysis used pseudonymised registry data. The authors reported competing-interest statements and funding sources as listed in the source. Data are held within the Swedish MS Registry and are available to qualified researchers subject to registry governance and Swedish data-protection legislation. The source did not report additional planned regulatory milestones or prospective trial registrations linked to these analyses.
Study limitations noted in the source include reliance on observational registry data and potential unmeasured confounding; the authors emphasized that adjustment for cumulative test number substantially attenuated the observed SDMT differences but left a small residual effect whose clinical importance the report did not resolve. No further methodological or subgroup details beyond those described above were provided in the source.