AIM: To propose a simple tool for early prediction of unfavourable long term evolution of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A Bayesian model allowed us to calculate, within the first year of disease and for each patient, the Bayesian Risk Estimate for MS (BREMS) score that represents the risk of reaching secondary progression (SP). RESULTS: The median BREMS scores were higher in 158 patients who reached SP within 10 years compared with 1087 progression free patients (0.69 vs 0.30; p<0.0001). The BREMS value was related to SP risk in the whole cohort (p<0.0001) and in the subgroup of 535 patients who had never been treated with immune therapies, thus reasonably representing the natural history of the disease (p<0.000001). CONCLUSIONS: The BREMS score may be useful both to identify patients who are candidates for early or for more aggressive therapies and to improve the design and analysis of clinical therapeutic trials and of observational studies.
AIM: To propose a simple tool for early prediction of unfavourable long term evolution of multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: A Bayesian model allowed us to calculate, within the first year of disease and for each patient, the Bayesian Risk Estimate for MS (BREMS) score that represents the risk of reaching secondary progression (SP). RESULTS: The median BREMS scores were higher in 158 patients who reached SP within 10 years compared with 1087 progression free patients (0.69 vs 0.30; p<0.0001). The BREMS value was related to SP risk in the whole cohort (p<0.0001) and in the subgroup of 535 patients who had never been treated with immune therapies, thus reasonably representing the natural history of the disease (p<0.000001). CONCLUSIONS: The BREMS score may be useful both to identify patients who are candidates for early or for more aggressive therapies and to improve the design and analysis of clinical therapeutic trials and of observational studies.
Authors: Sean J Pittock; Brian G Weinshenker; John H Noseworthy; Claudia F Lucchinetti; Mark Keegan; Dean M Wingerchuk; Jonathan Carter; Elizabeth Shuster; Moses Rodriguez Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2006-04
Authors: M Trojano; C Avolio; C Manzari; A Calò; F De Robertis; G Serio; P Livrea Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: C M Poser; D W Paty; L Scheinberg; W I McDonald; F A Davis; G C Ebers; K P Johnson; W A Sibley; D H Silberberg; W W Tourtellotte Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1983-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Maurizio A Leone; Olga Raymkulova; Paola Naldi; Piergiorgio Lochner; Laura Bolamperti; Lorenzo Coppo; Alessandro Stecco; William Liboni Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Albanese; Sara Zagaglia; Doriana Landi; Laura Boffa; Carolina G Nicoletti; Maria Grazia Marciani; Georgia Mandolesi; Girolama A Marfia; Fabio Buttari; Francesco Mori; Diego Centonze Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 8.322
Authors: I Galea; C Lederer; A Neuhaus; P A Muraro; A Scalfari; N Koch-Henriksen; C Heesen; S Koepke; P Stellmann; H Albrecht; A Winkelmann; F Weber; E Bahn; M Hauser; G Edan; G Ebers; M Daumer Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 6.089