Background Exogenous sexual steroids together with pregnancy have been shown to influence the risk of relapses in multiple sclerosis (MS). Treatments used during assisted reproductive techniques may consequently influence the short term evolution of MS by modifying the hormonal status of the patient. The objective of this study was to determine if there was an increased risk of developing exacerbations in women with MS after in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Methods MS and IVF data were either automatically extracted from 13 French university hospital databases or obtained from referring neurologists. After matching databases, patient clinical files were systematically reviewed to collect information about MS and the treatments used for IVF. The association between IVF and the occurrence of MS relapses was analysed in detail using univariate and multivariate statistical tests. Findings During the 11 year study period, 32 women with MS had undergone 70 IVF treatments, 48 using gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and 19 using GnRH antagonists. A significant increase in the annualised relapse rate (ARR) was observed during the 3 month period following IVF (mean ARR 1.60, median ARR 0) compared with the same period just before IVF (mean ARR 0.80, median ARR 0) and to a control period 1 year before IVF (mean ARR 0.68, median ARR 0). The significant increase in relapses was associated with the use of GnRH agonists (Wilcoxon paired test, p¼0.025) as well as IVF failure (Wilcoxon paired test, p¼0.019). Interpretation An increased relapse rate was observed in this study after IVF in patients with MS and may be partly related both to IVF failure and the use of GnRH agonists.

Background: No study to our knowledge has examined the use of observational data to emulate a clinical trial whereby patients at the time of kidney transplant proposal are randomly assigned to an awaiting transplantation or transplantation group. The main methodologic issue is definition of the baseline for dialyzed patients assigned to awaiting transplantation, resulting in the inability to use common propensity score-based approaches. We aimed to use time-dependent propensity score to better appraise the benefit of transplantation. Methods: We studied 23,231 patients included in the French registry and on a transplant waiting list from 2005 to 2016. The main outcome was time to death. By matching on time-dependent propensity score, we obtained 10,646 pairs of recipients (transplantation group) versus comparable patients remaining on dialysis (awaiting transplantation group). Results: The baseline exposure, that is, pseudo-randomization, was matching time. Median follow-up time was 3.5 years. At 10 years’ follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.8 years [95% confidence interval (CI) = 8.7, 8.9] in the transplantation group versus 8.2 years (95% CI = 8.1, 8.3) in the awaiting transplantation group. The corresponding life expectancy gain was 6.8 months (95% CI = 5.5, 8.2), and this corresponded to one prevented death at 10 years for 13 transplantations. Conclusions: Our study has estimated the life expectancy gain due to kidney transplantation. It confirms transplantation as the best treatment for end-stage renal disease. Furthermore, we demonstrated that this simple method should also be considered for estimating marginal effects of time-dependent exposures.