4.6 Article

Lipoic acid in secondary progressive MS A randomized controlled pilot trial

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000374

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs [B7493-W]
  2. NIH [UL1TR000128]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether lipoic acid (LA), an endogenously produced antioxidant, slowed the whole-brain atrophy rate and was safe in secondary progressive MS (SPMS). Methods: Patients with SPMS aged 40-70 years enrolled in a single center, 2-year, double-blind, randomized trial of daily oral 1,200 mg LA vs placebo. Primary outcome was change in annualized percent change brain volume (PCBV). Secondary outcomes were changes in rates of atrophy of segmented brain, spinal cord, and retinal substructures, disability, quality of life, and safety. Intention-to-treat analysis used linear mixed models. Results: Participation occurred between May 2, 2011, and August 14, 2015. Study arms of LA (n = 27) and placebo (n = 24) were matched with mean age of 58.5 (SD 5.9) years, 61% women, mean disease duration of 29.6 (SD 9.5) years, and median Expanded Disability Status Score of 6.0 (interquartile range 1.75). After 2 years, the annualized PCBV was significantly less in the LA arm compared with placebo (20.21 [standard error of the coefficient estimate (SEE) 0.14] vs 20.65 [SEE 0.10], 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.157-0.727, p = 0.002). Improved Timed 25-Foot Walk was almost but not significantly better in the LA than in the control group (-0.535 [SEE 0.358] vs 0.137 [SEE 0.247], 95% CI -1.37 to 0.03, p = 0.06). Significantly more gastrointestinal upset and fewer falls occurred in LA patients. Unexpected renal failure (n = 1) and glomerulonephritis (n = 1) occurred in the LA cohort. Compliance, measured by pill counts, was 87%. Conclusions: LA demonstrated a 68% reduction in annualized PCBV and suggested a clinical benefit in SPMS while maintaining favorable safety, tolerability, and compliance over 2 years.

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