4.3 Review

Assessing changes in relapse rates in multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 1414-1421

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458510379246

关键词

multiple sclerosis; relapsing-remitting; annualized relapse rate; symptoms duration; exacerbation; Expanded Disability Status Scale

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) [1 U01 NS 45719-01 A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) annualized relapse rates (ARRs) in trials may be declining due to changes in diagnostic criteria, MS etiology, study criteria, and selection biases. This review examines if there is a trend in the ARR for relapsing-remitting MS patients (RRMS) over time and if so, why. A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science (R), and the Cochrane Library using electronic searches, screen scraping for abstracts, and hand searching of references for randomized trials conducted between 1960 and 2008. Out of 72 randomized trials, 56 (77.8%) defined relapse. This study uses 32 placebo relapsing-remitting studies out of the 37 (66.1%) with RRMS. The mean ARR for the treatment arms was 0.68 and the one for the placebo groups was 1.002. The year of publication was negatively associated with the ARR (p = 0.0001). The annual reduction amounts to 0.36 relapses over a 10-year period. Age and duration of symptoms were negatively associated with the ARR. Year of publication was significantly negatively associated with ARR after controlling for covariates. ARRs have fallen with relapse definition, entrance criteria remain important, but time exceeds all these variables and reflects two likely sources, selection of patients for trials by clinicians and rescue of patients truncating the number of multiple relapses. The impact of truncating the number of relapses on the falling rates is important, not only on the ARRs, but also on the impact of informative censoring in drop-outs.

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

4.3
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