4.5 Review

Motor function in type 2 and 3 SMA patients treated with Nusinersen: a critical review and meta-analysis

期刊

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-02065-z

关键词

Spinal muscular atrophy; Critical review; Nusinersen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review critically examined real-world data on motor function in SMA patients treated with Nusinersen, finding positive changes in the treated group compared to negative changes in the untreated group.
Background There is an increasing number of papers reporting the real world use of Nusinersen in different cohorts of SMA patients. Main body The aim of this paper was to critically review the literature reporting real world data on motor function in type 2 and 3 patients treated with Nusinersen, subdividing the results according to SMA type, age and type of assessment and performing a meta-analysis of the available results. We also report the available data collected in untreated patients using the same measures. Of the 400 papers identified searching for Nusinersen and spinal muscular atrophy, 19 reported motor function in types 2 and 3: 13 in adults, 4 in children and 2 included both. Twelve papers reported untreated patients' data. All studies reported positive changes on at least one of the functional measures and at every time point while all-untreated cohorts showed negative changes. Conclusion Our review suggests that Nusinersen provides a favorable benefit in motor function across a wide range of SMA type 2 and 3 patients over a 10-14 month observation period. Although a direct comparison with studies reporting data from untreated patients cannot be made, the longitudinal changes in the treated cohorts (consistently positive) are divergent from those observed in the untreated cohorts (consistently negative). The difference could be observed both in the global cohorts and in smaller groups subdivided according to age, type or functional status.

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

4.5
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