4.3 Article

Transition to secondary progression in relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis: Definitions and risk factors

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 430-438

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458520974366

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; secondary progressive; disease registry; big data; prognosis; data-driven algorithm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A data-driven algorithm (DDA) definition of SPMS identifies older, more disabled patients with faster disease progression, while disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exposure reduces the risk of SPMS conversion but does not prevent disability accumulation after the transition to SP.
Background: No uniform criteria for a sensitive identification of the transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) to secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) are available. Objective: To compare risk factors of SPMS using two definitions: one based on the neurologist judgment (ND) and an objective data-driven algorithm (DDA). Methods: Relapsing-onset MS patients (n = 19,318) were extracted from the Italian MS Registry. Risk factors for SPMS and for reaching irreversible Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 6.0, after SP transition, were estimated using multivariable Cox regression models. Results: SPMS identified by the DDA (n = 2343, 12.1%) were older, more disabled and with a faster progression to severe disability (p < 0.0001), than those identified by the ND (n = 3868, 20.0%). In both groups, the most consistent risk factors (p < 0.05) for SPMS were a multifocal onset, an age at onset >40 years, higher baseline EDSS score and a higher number of relapses; the most consistent protective factor was the disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exposure. DMT exposure during SP did not impact the risk of reaching irreversible EDSS 6.0. Conclusion: A DDA definition of SPMS identifies more aggressive progressive patients. DMT exposure reduces the risk of SPMS conversion, but it does not prevent the disability accumulation after the SP transition.

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