4.6 Article

Impact of endocrine dysregulation on disability and non-motor symptoms in pediatric onset multiple sclerosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1304610

关键词

pediatric; multiple sclerosis; hormones; endocrine; depression; fatigue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The endocrine status of children with pediatric onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) is not associated with the severity of the disease or non-motor symptoms, but levels of free testosterone, cortisol, ACTH, and progesterone are abnormal in these patients.
Background: Pediatric onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) commonly occurs at the time of various endocrine changes. Evaluation of the impact of endocrine status on disease severity in POMS has not been previously explored.Objective: This study sought to evaluate if sex and stress hormones in children with POMS impact motor and non-motor diseases severity.Methods: A single-center case control study was performed. Individuals with POMS were compared to individuals without neurologic disease. Each individual had three blood draws assessing stress and sex hormones between 07:00 and 09:00. Measures of fatigue (Epworth sleepiness scale), depression (PHQ-9), and quality of life (PedsQL) assessed at each visit.Results: Forty individuals with POMS and 40 controls were enrolled. Individuals with POMS had lower free testosterone (p = 0.003), cortisol (p < 0.001), and ACTH (p < 0.001) and had higher progesterone (p = 0.025) levels than controls. Relapses and EDSS were not impacted by endocrine variables. The POMS cohort had a significantly higher Epworth score (p < 0.001), PHQ-9 score (p < 0.001), and lower PQL score (p < 0.001) than controls. Non-motor measures were not associated with endocrine status.Conclusion: Free testosterone, cortisol, ACTH, and progesterone were abnormal in children with POMS although there was no association between endocrine status and markers of disease severity or non-motor symptoms of 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

4.6
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