Comparison of 2 Methods for Estimating Multiple Sclerosis-Related Mortality.

Background And Objectives: Determining whether multiple sclerosis (MS) causes death is challenging. Our objective was to contrast 2 frameworks to estimate probabilities of death attributed to MS (P) and other causes (P): the cause-specific framework (CSF), which requires the causes of death, and the excess mortality framework (EMF), which does not.

Methods: We used data from the Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP, n = 37,524) and from a comparative subset where causes of death were available (4,004 women with relapsing-onset MS [R-MS]). In CSF, the probabilities were estimated using the Aalen-Johansen method. In EMF, they were estimated from the excess mortality hazard, which is the additional mortality among patients with MS as compared with the expected mortality in the matched general population. P values were estimated at 30 years of follow-up, (1) with both frameworks in the comparative subset, by age group at onset, and (2) with EMF only in the OFSEP population, by initial phenotype, sex, and age at onset.

Results: In the comparative subset, the estimated 30-year P values were greater using EMF than CSF: 10.9% (95% CI 8.3-13.6) vs 8.7% (6.4-11.8) among the youngest and 20.4% (11.3-29.5) vs 16.2% (8.7-30.2) for the oldest groups, respectively. In the CSF, probabilities of death from unknown causes ranged from 1.5% (0.7-3.0) to 6.4% (2.5-16.4), and even after their reallocation, P values remained lower with CSF than with EMF. The estimated probabilities of being alive were close using the 2 frameworks, and the estimated P (EMF vs CSF) was 2.6% (2.5-2.6) vs 2.1% (1.2-3.9) and 18.1% (16.9-19.3) vs 26.4% (16.5-42.2), respectively, for the youngest and oldest groups. In the OFSEP population, the estimated 30-year P values ranged from 7.5% (6.4-8.7) to 24.0% (19.1-28.9) in patients with R-MS and from 25.4% (21.1-29.7) to 36.8% (28.3-45.3) in primary progressive patients, depending on sex and age.

Discussion: EMF has the great advantage of not requiring death certificates, their quality being less than optimal. Conceptually, it also seems more relevant because it avoids having to state, for each individual, whether death was directly or indirectly caused by MS or whether it would have occurred anyway, which is especially difficult in such chronic diseases.