4.7 Article

Epidemiology of NMOSD in Sweden from 1987 to 2013

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 93, 期 2, 页码 E181-E189

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007746

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Brain Foundation
  2. Karolinska Institutet
  3. Stockholm City Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To report the yearly incidence rate and prevalence of neuromyelitis spectrum disorder (NMOSD) in Sweden and to investigate clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcome. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of hospital case records of 294 individuals diagnosed with neuromyelitis optica (NMO) (G36.0 ICD-10, 341.0 ICD-9) in the Swedish National Patient Register from 1987 to end of 2013 or detected by the presence of aquaporin-4 (AQP4) immunoglobulin G (IgG) in serum during the study period. Ninety-two patients (51 NMO and 41 NMOSD) met the 2006 Wingerchuk criteria and were included in the study. Ten patients with an onset of NMO prior to 1987 and alive at the end of 2013 were included when estimating the prevalence. Results The average yearly incidence rate per 1,000,000 individuals increased significantly from 0.30 (confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.41) between 1987 and 2006 to 0.79 (CI 0.55-1.03) between 2007 and 2013. The prevalence was 10.4 (CI 8.5-12.6) per 1,000,000 individuals at end of 2013. The median time from onset to first relapse was 1.42 years (range 0.58-3.90). The probability of relapse was 60% and 75% after 5 and 10 years after onset. More than 80% were treated with immunosuppressive drugs. Three patients died during the study period. Conclusion The increased incidence rate during the study period was likely due to heightened awareness and increased access to MRI and AQP4-IgG analysis. Incidence and prevalence of NMO in Sweden correspond to other countries with a predominately Caucasian population. We found that most patients were treated with immunosuppressant drugs, presumably resulting in low mortality among the detected cases.

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