4.0 Article

Evidence of axonal damage in the early stages of multiple sclerosis and its relevance to disability

期刊

ARCHIVES OF NEUROLOGY
卷 58, 期 1, 页码 65-70

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archneur.58.1.65

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess axonal damage and its contribution to disability at different stages of multiple sclerosis (MS). Background: Recent in a vivo imaging and in situ pathologic studies have demonstrated that substantial axonal damage accompanies the inflammatory lesions of MS. However, the relation of axonal damage to the duration of MS and its contribution to disability at different stages of the disease remain poorly defined. Design: We performed proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in 88 patients with a wide range of clinical disability and disease duration to measure N-acetylaspartate: (NAA, an index of axonal integrity) relative to creatine (Cr) in a large central brain volume that included mostly normal-appearing white matter on magnetic resonance imaging. Results: We observed that the NAA/Cr values were abnormally low in the early stages of MS, even before significant disability (measured using the Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]) was evident clinically, and declined more rapidly with respect to EDSS at lower than at higher EDSS scores (P<.001). The correlation of NAA/Cr values with EDSS score was significantly (P<.03) stronger in patients with mild disability (EDSS score <5, Spearman rank order correlation=-0.54, P<.001) than in patients with more severe disability (EDSS score greater than or equal to5, Spearman rank order correlation=-0.1, P<.9). When similar analyses were performed in patients with MS grouped for duration of disease, the subgroup with early disease duration (<5 years) also showed central brain NAA/Cr resonance intensity ratios significantly lower than healthy controls (P<.001). Conclusion: Cerebral axonal damage begins and contributes to disability from the earliest stages of the disease.

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

4.0
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