4.4 Article

Defining brain volume cutoffs to identify clinically relevant atrophy in RRMS

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 656-664

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516659550

关键词

Disability worsening; multiple sclerosis; normalized brain volume; fingolimod

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland (FREEDOMS/FREEDOMS II)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To define values of normalized brain volume (NBV) that can be categorized as low, medium, or high, according to baseline characteristics of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients. Methods: Expected NBV (eNBV) was calculated for each patient based on age, disease duration, sex, baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and T2-lesion volume, entering these variables into a multiple regression model run on 2342 RRMS patients (pooled FREEDOMS/FREEDOMS-II population). According to the difference between their observed NBV and their eNBV, patients were classified as having low NBV, medium NBV, or high NBV. We evaluated whether these NBV categories were clinically meaningful by assessing correlation with disability worsening. Results: The distribution of differences between observed NBV and eNBV was used to categorize patients as having low NBV, medium NBV or high NBV. Taking the high-NBV group as reference, the hazard ratios (HRs) for 2-year disability worsening, adjusted for treatment effect, were 1.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.63, p = 0.16) for the medium NBV and 1.75 (95% CI: 1.26-2.44, p = 0.001) for the low NBV. The predictive value of NBV groups was preserved over 4 years. Treatment effect appeared more evident in low-NBV patients (HR = 0.58) than in medium-NBV (HR = 0.72) and in high-NBV (HR = 0.80) patients; however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.57). Conclusion: RRMS patients can be categorized into disability risk groups based on individual eNBV values according to baseline demographics and clinical characteristics.

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

4.4
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