4.3 Article

Is it cost-effective to request IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids in daily practice as a biomarker for poor prognosis in multiple sclerosis?

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND RELATED DISORDERS
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2023.105033

Keywords

Biomarkers; Demyelinating diseases; Neuroimmunology; Myelin lipids; Multiple sclerosis; Oligoclonal bands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to analyze whether the presence of IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids is associated with disease progression in multiple sclerosis. The results showed that 81.9% of patients had IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids, but no association with other poor prognostic variables was found.
Background: various prognostic factors of multiple sclerosis have been identified, including demographic, clinical, radiological, and laboratory factors. The aim was to analyze whether the presence of IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids is associated with disease progression.Methods: an individual-based, prospective, observational study was conducted at the Neurology Department of Hospital Universitari i Polite`cnic la Fe. Clinical, radiological, and laboratory variables were collected. Data analysis was divided into a descriptive phase and a subsequent analytical phase.Results: a total of 116 patients were included. 81.9% of them had IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids, with phosphatidylcholine being the predominant type. A higher proportion of patients with IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids required treatment with a disease-modifying drug, started treatment at an earlier stage, showed poorer results in functional tests, and exhibited a higher increase in lesion burden, although these differences were not statistically significant.Conclusions: In our study, the presence of IgM oligoclonal bands against lipids was not found to be associated with other poor prognostic variables.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available