Camille Robin,Fabien Rollot,Mathilde Lefort,Romain Casey,Sandra Vukusic,Guillaume Mathey,Jonathan Ciron,Jerome De Seze,Bruno Stankoff,Elisabeth Maillart,Aurélie Ruet,Pierre M Labauge,Arnaud Kwiatkowski,Helene Zephir,Caroline Papeix,Gilles Defer,Christine Lebrun-Frenay,Thibault Moreau,David Axel Laplaud,Eric Berger,Pierre Clavelou,Eric Thouvenot,Olivier Heinzlef,Jean Pelletier,Olivier Casez,Bertrand Bourre,Abir Wahab,Laurent Magy,Solène Moulin,Jean-Philippe Camdessanche,Ines Doghri,Mariana Sarov,Karolina Hankiewicz,Corinne Pottier,Amélie Dos Santos,Eric Manchon,Maya Tchikviladze,Chantal Nifle,Anne Kerbrat,Gilles Edan,Emmanuelle Le Page,Laure Michel,
{"title":"Use of Disease-Modifying Therapies in Patients With Late-Onset Multiple Sclerosis.","authors":"Camille Robin,Fabien Rollot,Mathilde Lefort,Romain Casey,Sandra Vukusic,Guillaume Mathey,Jonathan Ciron,Jerome De Seze,Bruno Stankoff,Elisabeth Maillart,Aurélie Ruet,Pierre M Labauge,Arnaud Kwiatkowski,Helene Zephir,Caroline Papeix,Gilles Defer,Christine Lebrun-Frenay,Thibault Moreau,David Axel Laplaud,Eric Berger,Pierre Clavelou,Eric Thouvenot,Olivier Heinzlef,Jean Pelletier,Olivier Casez,Bertrand Bourre,Abir Wahab,Laurent Magy,Solène Moulin,Jean-Philippe Camdessanche,Ines Doghri,Mariana Sarov,Karolina Hankiewicz,Corinne Pottier,Amélie Dos Santos,Eric Manchon,Maya Tchikviladze,Chantal Nifle,Anne Kerbrat,Gilles Edan,Emmanuelle Le Page,Laure Michel, ","doi":"10.1212/wnl.0000000000213744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\r\nThe therapeutic strategy in patients with late-onset MS (LOMS) remains poorly defined. In this study, we aimed to evaluate both clinical and MRI outcomes between 2 cohorts of patients with relapsing-remitting LOMS treated or not yet treated.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nPatients with relapsing-remitting MS were included for the analysis if disease onset occurred after 55 years and if they had at least one follow-up visit. The primary outcome was time to first relapse between 2 matched groups of patients with LOMS (treated and not yet treated). Secondary outcomes were as follows: (1) time to first confirmed disability progression (CDP), (2) time to first progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) event, (3) time to secondary progression (SPMS), (4) time to first MRI activity, and (5) serious infection incidence rates (IIRs). For the comparative analyses, we adopted a time-dependent propensity score matching approach.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 881 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age at onset was 59.9 (4.43) years. After applying propensity score matching, 436 patients were matched. The mean (SD) follow-up duration was 5.2 (4.27) years in the treated group and 5.0 (3.86) years in the not-yet-treated group. Mean (SD) time to first relapse was significantly longer in the treated group compared with the not-yet-treated group (7.0 years [0.33] vs 5.4 years [0.33]; p = 0.001). Mean (SD) time to first MRI activity was significantly longer in the treated group (5.9 years [0.33] vs 5.0 years [0.33]; p = 0.049). However, the mean time to CDP, PIRA, or SPMS was not different between the 2 groups (difference = 0.32 years; p = 0.585 for CDP; difference = 0.40 years; p = 0.442 for PIRA; difference = -0.02 years; p = 0.952 for SPMS). No increase in serious IIRs was observed with an incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.07-2.10, p = 0.265) in the never-treated group compared with the treated one.\r\n\r\nDISCUSSION\r\nThis study demonstrates a beneficial effect of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) on disease activity in patients with LOMS but without significant impact on disability progression. Main limitations are linked to the challenge of data collection and to the baseline imbalances between the 2 groups.\r\n\r\nCLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE\r\nThis study provides Class III evidence that in patients with LOMS, treatment with DMTs is associated with a longer time to first relapse compared with those not treated with DMTs.","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"2 1","pages":"e213744"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000213744","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The therapeutic strategy in patients with late-onset MS (LOMS) remains poorly defined. In this study, we aimed to evaluate both clinical and MRI outcomes between 2 cohorts of patients with relapsing-remitting LOMS treated or not yet treated.
METHODS
Patients with relapsing-remitting MS were included for the analysis if disease onset occurred after 55 years and if they had at least one follow-up visit. The primary outcome was time to first relapse between 2 matched groups of patients with LOMS (treated and not yet treated). Secondary outcomes were as follows: (1) time to first confirmed disability progression (CDP), (2) time to first progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) event, (3) time to secondary progression (SPMS), (4) time to first MRI activity, and (5) serious infection incidence rates (IIRs). For the comparative analyses, we adopted a time-dependent propensity score matching approach.
RESULTS
A total of 881 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age at onset was 59.9 (4.43) years. After applying propensity score matching, 436 patients were matched. The mean (SD) follow-up duration was 5.2 (4.27) years in the treated group and 5.0 (3.86) years in the not-yet-treated group. Mean (SD) time to first relapse was significantly longer in the treated group compared with the not-yet-treated group (7.0 years [0.33] vs 5.4 years [0.33]; p = 0.001). Mean (SD) time to first MRI activity was significantly longer in the treated group (5.9 years [0.33] vs 5.0 years [0.33]; p = 0.049). However, the mean time to CDP, PIRA, or SPMS was not different between the 2 groups (difference = 0.32 years; p = 0.585 for CDP; difference = 0.40 years; p = 0.442 for PIRA; difference = -0.02 years; p = 0.952 for SPMS). No increase in serious IIRs was observed with an incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.07-2.10, p = 0.265) in the never-treated group compared with the treated one.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrates a beneficial effect of disease-modifying therapy (DMT) on disease activity in patients with LOMS but without significant impact on disability progression. Main limitations are linked to the challenge of data collection and to the baseline imbalances between the 2 groups.
CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE
This study provides Class III evidence that in patients with LOMS, treatment with DMTs is associated with a longer time to first relapse compared with those not treated with DMTs.
期刊介绍:
Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology.
As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content.
Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.