Specific Aspects of Immunotherapy for Multiple Sclerosis in Switzerland—A Structured Commentary, Update 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

 

The authors, in conjunction with the scientific advisory of the Swiss multiple sclerosis Society and the Swiss Neurological Society, performed a structured commentary on immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis.

This is an important paper, given the heterogeneity of approval boards within the Swiss community.

Abstract

 

Line 33, include the article "a" consensus.

 

Line 36, Please rewrite a  suggestion, “ and new safety aspects in reference to the risk of COVID -19 infection and vaccination.”

 

Introduction

 

Line 44, Please include the article “a” before treatment.

 

Line 56, delete the article: “the “ before compulsory

 Line 60, Please rewrite this sentence and be more explicit and mention how the COVID has changed the environment “Here we present an update of newly approved medications, but also due to the changed environment caused by the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic.”

Line 61, Please replace Changed to Changing.

 

 

Impact of MS therapies on COVID vaccines

Very well written and clear

 

Commentary on individual drugs

 

Excellent commentaries may need some editing and formatting of the tables.

 

References

 

Great references. Please include when the paper is a commentary and not an original investigation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors gave very comprehensive commentary on specific aspects of immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis in Switzerland. The paper is well written, easy to follow and read. Conclusion is clearly written and consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

 

I want to congratulate the authors for their fine work and excellent effort. The authors have done an outstanding job summarizing recommendations regarding the specific aspects of immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) in Switzerland with an update on newly approved therapies and their safety aspects. In the article, the authors also discussed the impact of disease-modifying therapies on COVID-19 infection in patients with MS. In recent years, the number of effective disease-modifying medicines available for the treatment of MS has expanded considerably.  In this regard, the recommendations presented in this publication are highly pertinent and beneficial as it not only provides a general overview of the Swiss MS therapeutic landscape but also serves as an outstanding guide for physicians treating patients with MS. Further, the research presented here is well-structured and presented in a clear explicit manner and supported by relevant references.  I only have a minor suggestion that I believe will help make this already outstanding work even better. In the current study, the authors don’t discuss the recommendations of disease-modifying therapies in pregnant patients with MS and COVID-19 infections or how the newly approved drugs affect the pregnancy and breastfeeding phase. Even though the authors discussed writing a separate commentary, I believe it would be extremely valuable if they provide a brief comment on how newly approved therapies impact pregnancy in MS patients and in those with COVID-19 infections since pregnant and postpartum women have an increased risk for more severe illness from COVID-19. Overall, I am very enthusiastic about this work given the sound nature of the study with excellent compellation of the recommendations and safety aspects of the current therapies used to treat MS patients in Switzerland. I highly recommend the article for publication in Clinical and Translational Neuroscience. 

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article is significant from the point of view of the literature research.

I would recommend some minor changes in the style of the language and also some attention to the author's requirements (style, font, etc).

Moreover, more information on the chapter on Materials and Methods would be welcomed.

For a more eye-catching feature, I would recommend at least 2 figures that resume the paper.

Also, in the conclusion section, more information is required. 

Author Response

Please see the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx