Brittani L Conway1, Burcu Zeydan2, Uğur Uygunoğlu3, Martina Novotna4, Aksel Siva5, Sean J Pittock6, Elizabeth J Atkinson7, Moses Rodriguez6, Orhun H Kantarci6. 1. Mayo Clinic Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology, and Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA/ HealthPartners Neuroscience Center, Saint Paul, MN, USA. 2. Mayo Clinic Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology, and Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA/ Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Mayo Clinic Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology, and Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA/ Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA/ Polyclinic Medicina Plus, Prague, Czech Republic. 5. Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Mayo Clinic Center for Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmune Neurology, and Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 7. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on recovery from multiple sclerosis relapses. BACKGROUND: Increasing disability in multiple sclerosis is a consequence of progressive disease and incomplete relapse recovery. METHODS: The first and last-ever relapse data (357 relapses in 193 patients) from the Olmsted County population-based multiple sclerosis cohort were systematically reviewed for age, fulminance, location (optic nerve, brainstem/cerebellar, spinal cord), peak deficit, and maximum recovery. Three different relapse-outcome measures were studied both as paired analyses and as an overall group effect: change from peak deficit to maximum recovery in raw functional system score related to the relapse (ΔFSS), a previously published FSS-based relapse-impact model, and change from peak deficit to maximum recovery in Extended Disability Status Scale (ΔEDSS) score. RESULTS: Older age was linearly associated with worse recovery in the ΔFSS outcome (p = 0.002), ΔEDSS outcome (p < 0.001), and the FSS-based relapse-impact model (p < 0.001). A multivariate analysis of ΔFSS outcome linked poor recovery to older age (p = 0.015), relapse location (transverse myelitis or brainstem/cerebellar syndrome; p < 0.001), and relapse fulminance (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Multiple sclerosis-relapse recovery declines in a linear fashion with increased age, which should be considered when making treatment decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of age on recovery from multiple sclerosis relapses. BACKGROUND: Increasing disability in multiple sclerosis is a consequence of progressive disease and incomplete relapse recovery. METHODS: The first and last-ever relapse data (357 relapses in 193 patients) from the Olmsted County population-based multiple sclerosis cohort were systematically reviewed for age, fulminance, location (optic nerve, brainstem/cerebellar, spinal cord), peak deficit, and maximum recovery. Three different relapse-outcome measures were studied both as paired analyses and as an overall group effect: change from peak deficit to maximum recovery in raw functional system score related to the relapse (ΔFSS), a previously published FSS-based relapse-impact model, and change from peak deficit to maximum recovery in Extended Disability Status Scale (ΔEDSS) score. RESULTS: Older age was linearly associated with worse recovery in the ΔFSS outcome (p = 0.002), ΔEDSS outcome (p < 0.001), and the FSS-based relapse-impact model (p < 0.001). A multivariate analysis of ΔFSS outcome linked poor recovery to older age (p = 0.015), relapse location (transverse myelitis or brainstem/cerebellar syndrome; p < 0.001), and relapse fulminance (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Multiple sclerosis-relapse recovery declines in a linear fashion with increased age, which should be considered when making treatment decisions.
Authors: Marinos G Sotiropoulos; Hrishikesh Lokhande; Brian C Healy; Mariann Polgar-Turcsanyi; Bonnie I Glanz; Rohit Bakshi; Howard L Weiner; Tanuja Chitnis Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2021-05-28
Authors: Leoni Rolfes; Steffen Pfeuffer; Tobias Ruck; Nico Melzer; Marc Pawlitzki; Michael Heming; Marcus Brand; Heinz Wiendl; Sven G Meuth Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Christopher E McMurran; Trisha Mukherjee; J William L Brown; Andrew W Michell; Declan T Chard; Robin J M Franklin; Alasdair J Coles; Nick G Cunniffe Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 5.430
Authors: Steffen Pfeuffer; Leoni Rolfes; Heinz Wiendl; Sven G Meuth; Timo Wirth; Falk Steffen; Marc Pawlitzki; Andreas Schulte-Mecklenbeck; Catharina C Gross; Marcus Brand; Stefan Bittner; Tobias Ruck; Luisa Klotz Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 9.587