4.3 Article

Disability measurement in Multiple Sclerosis patients 55 years and older: What is the Expanded Disability Status Scale really telling clinicians?

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102724

关键词

Multiple Sclerosis; Aging; EDSS; Comorbidities; Polypharmacy

资金

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMSS) [PP170929162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study on older individuals found that EDSS scores may be influenced by factors such as age, comorbidities, and polypharmacy, rather than just disability caused by multiple sclerosis. Pyramidal and cerebellar functional systems accounted for a significant portion of unique variance between groups.
Background: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) measures disease progression in Multiple Sclerosis (MS). EDSS changes are assumed to be due to worsening MS-related disability. Strict interpretation of this premise may include some normal findings as abnormal, inflating the disability score. Further, determining the cause of neurologic symptoms can be difficult in an older population with comorbid illness and polypharmacy. Objective: To examine the association between EDSS, age, comorbidities and polypharmacy. Methods: 106 people, 55 years and older, with and without MS were administered the EDSS and a validated comorbidity questionnaire. Polypharmacy was also assessed. Results: Median EDSS scores were 6.0 in people with MS and 3.0 in people without MS. No participant in our cohort had an EDSS of 0. Higher EDSS scores were associated with older age and more polypharmacy. Pyramidal and cerebellar functional systems accounted for the largest percentage of unique variance between groups. Conclusion: Older individuals with and without MS demonstrated significant disability on the EDSS. These findings indicate that EDSS scores may be partially due to factors other than MS. Our understanding of disease course and disability may benefit from the development of normative EDSS scores to correct for these factors.

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