4.3 Article

Prognostic role of intrathecal IgM synthesis in multiple sclerosis: Results from a clinical series

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 198-207

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458520907913

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; cerebrospinal fluid; biomarker; intrathecal IgM synthesis; oligoclonal bands; magnetic resonance imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study confirms the prognostic role of ITMS in multiple sclerosis, showing that patients with ITMS are more likely to experience a second clinical attack, especially those with relapsing-remitting MS.
Background: There is emerging evidence that intrathecal IgM synthesis (ITMS) is a risk factor for conversion to clinically defined multiple sclerosis (CDMS) in clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) patients. Objectives: The objective of this study is to verify the prognostic role of ITMS as a risk factor for the second clinical attack in patients after the first demyelinating event. Methods: Monocentric observational study performed on prospectively acquired clinical data and retrospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. ITMS was assessed according to Reiber's non-linear function. We compared time to the second attack by using Kaplan-Meier curves and performed adjustment by Cox regression analysis. Results: Demographics and clinical data were collected prospectively in a cohort of 68 patients. ITMS occurred in 40% (27/68) of patients who had a higher T1-hypointense lesion load at brain MRI (p = 0.041). In multivariate Cox regression analysis (adjusted for age, sex, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale, IgG oligoclonal bands and disease-modifying treatment exposure), relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with ITMS were at higher risk to experience a second clinical attack (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 6.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.1-18.4, p = 0.001). Conclusion: Together with previous studies, our findings support the role of ITMS as a prognostic biomarker in MS.

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