Nils C Landmeyer1, Paul-Christian Bürkner2, Heinz Wiendl2, Tobias Ruck2, Hans-Peter Hartung2, Heinz Holling2, Sven G Meuth2, Andreas Johnen1. 1. From the Clinic of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology (N.C.L., H.W., T.R., S.G.M., A.J.), University Hospital Münster, Westphalian-Wilhelms-University Münster, Germany; Department of Statistics (P.-C.B., H.H.), Faculty of Psychology, Westphalian-Wilhelms-University Münster, Germany; and Department of Neurology (H.-P.H.), UKD and Center for Neurology and Neuropsychiatry, LVR Klinikum, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany. a.johnen@uni-muenster.de nils.landmeyer@ukmuenster.de. 2. From the Clinic of Neurology with Institute of Translational Neurology (N.C.L., H.W., T.R., S.G.M., A.J.), University Hospital Münster, Westphalian-Wilhelms-University Münster, Germany; Department of Statistics (P.-C.B., H.H.), Faculty of Psychology, Westphalian-Wilhelms-University Münster, Germany; and Department of Neurology (H.-P.H.), UKD and Center for Neurology and Neuropsychiatry, LVR Klinikum, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are the gold standard for slowing disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS), but their effects on cognitive impairment, a key symptom of the disease, are mostly unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effects of DMTs on cognitive test performance in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting longitudinal cognitive performance data related to all major DMTs. The standardized mean difference (Hedges g) between baseline and follow-up cognitive assessment was used as the main effect size measure. RESULTS: Forty-four studies, including 55 distinct MS patient samples, were found eligible for the systematic review. Twenty-five studies were related to platform therapies (mainly β-interferon [n = 17] and glatiramer acetate [n = 4]), whereas 22 studies were related to escalation therapies (mainly natalizumab [n = 14] and fingolimod [n = 6]). Reported data were mostly confined to the cognitive domain processing speed. A meta-analysis including 41 studies and 7,131 patients revealed a small to moderate positive effect on cognitive test performance of DMTs in general (g = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.21-0.33]), but no statistically significant differences between platform (g = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.18-0.35]) and escalation therapies (g = 0.28, 95% CI = [0.19-0.37]) or between any single DMT and β-interferon. CONCLUSIONS: DMTs are effective in improving cognitive test performance in RRMS, but a treatment escalation mainly to amend cognition is not supported by the current evidence. Given the multitude of DMTs and their widespread use, the available data regarding differential treatment effects on cognitive impairment are remarkably scant. Clinical drug trials that use more extensive cognitive outcome measures are urgently needed.
OBJECTIVE: Disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are the gold standard for slowing disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS), but their effects on cognitive impairment, a key symptom of the disease, are mostly unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the differential effects of DMTs on cognitive test performance in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting longitudinal cognitive performance data related to all major DMTs. The standardized mean difference (Hedges g) between baseline and follow-up cognitive assessment was used as the main effect size measure. RESULTS: Forty-four studies, including 55 distinct MS patient samples, were found eligible for the systematic review. Twenty-five studies were related to platform therapies (mainly β-interferon [n = 17] and glatiramer acetate [n = 4]), whereas 22 studies were related to escalation therapies (mainly natalizumab [n = 14] and fingolimod [n = 6]). Reported data were mostly confined to the cognitive domain processing speed. A meta-analysis including 41 studies and 7,131 patients revealed a small to moderate positive effect on cognitive test performance of DMTs in general (g = 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.21-0.33]), but no statistically significant differences between platform (g = 0.27, 95% CI = [0.18-0.35]) and escalation therapies (g = 0.28, 95% CI = [0.19-0.37]) or between any single DMT and β-interferon. CONCLUSIONS: DMTs are effective in improving cognitive test performance in RRMS, but a treatment escalation mainly to amend cognition is not supported by the current evidence. Given the multitude of DMTs and their widespread use, the available data regarding differential treatment effects on cognitive impairment are remarkably scant. Clinical drug trials that use more extensive cognitive outcome measures are urgently needed.
Authors: Dawn W Langdon; Davorka Tomic; Iris-Katharina Penner; Pasquale Calabrese; Gary Cutter; Dieter A Häring; Frank Dahlke; Ludwig Kappos Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-10-12 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Ruth Ann Marrie; Ronak Patel; Chase R Figley; Jennifer Kornelsen; James M Bolton; Lesley A Graff; Erin L Mazerolle; Carl Helmick; Md Nasir Uddin; Teresa D Figley; James J Marriott; Charles N Bernstein; John D Fisk Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Dániel Veréb; Márton Attila Kovács; Krisztián Kocsis; Eszter Tóth; Bence Bozsik; András Király; Bálint Kincses; Péter Faragó; Zsanett Fricska-Nagy; Krisztina Bencsik; Péter Klivényi; Zsigmond Tamás Kincses; Nikoletta Szabó Journal: Brain Topogr Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Stanley L Cohan; Barry A Hendin; Anthony T Reder; Kyle Smoot; Robin Avila; Jason P Mendoza; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Samuel Lees; Mathew Dicker; Jie En Ku; Varun Chaganti; Matthew Mew-Sum; Nick Wang; Angela Smith; Christopher Oldmeadow; Wooi Lynn Goon; Marc Bevan; Danielle Lang; Madeleine Hinwood Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 2.692