4.7 Article

Predictors of Long-Term Disability Accrual in Relapse-Onset Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 89-100

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.24682

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [1032484]
  2. NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence [1001216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify predictors of 10-year Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) change after treatment initiation in patients with relapse-onset multiple sclerosis. Methods: Using data obtained from MSBase, we defined baseline as the date of first injectable therapy initiation. Patients need only have remained on injectable therapy for 1 day and were monitored on any approved disease-modifying therapy, or no therapy thereafter. Median EDSS score changes over a 10-year period were determined. Predictors of EDSS change were then assessed using median quantile regression analysis. Sensitivity analyses were further performed. Results: We identified 2,466 patients followed up for at least 10 years reporting post-baseline disability scores. Patients were treated an average 83% of their follow-up time. EDSS scores increased by a median 1 point (interquartile range = 0-2) at 10 years post-baseline. Annualized relapse rate was highly predictive of increases in median EDSS over 10 years (coeff = 1.14, p = 1.9 = 10(-22)). On-therapy relapses carried greater burden than off-therapy relapses. Cumulative treatment exposure was independently associated with lower EDSS at 10 years (coeff = -0.86, p = 1.3x10(-9)). Furthermore, pregnancies were also independently associated with lower EDSS scores over the 10-year observation period (coeff = -0.36, p = 0.009). Interpretation: We provide evidence of long-term treatment benefit in a large registry cohort, and provide evidence of long-term protective effects of pregnancy against disability accrual. We demonstrate that high annualized relapse rate, particularly on-treatment relapse, is an indicator of poor prognosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据