Comparative Efficacy of Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis Versus Intravenous Methylprednisolone in Acute Attacks of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: A Prospective Cohort Study.

IF 4.8 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Xiwen Ai, Qiuju Li, Kan Wang, Jing Peng, Desheng Zhu, Yangtai Guan
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis Versus Intravenous Methylprednisolone in Acute Attacks of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder: A Prospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Xiwen Ai, Qiuju Li, Kan Wang, Jing Peng, Desheng Zhu, Yangtai Guan","doi":"10.1007/s40120-025-00835-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) and intravenously administered methylprednisolone (IVMP) are both established treatments for acute attacks of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), their comparative efficacy and safety profiles remain a critical area of investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse events of DFPP versus IVMP in patients with NMOSD, with a focus on disability improvement and treatment tolerability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective single-center cohort study was performed with 146 patients with NMOSD, who were treated with DFPP, IVMP, and combination therapy (DFPP + IVMP). Primary efficacy was measured by changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores (ΔEDSS). Secondary outcomes included Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Safety profiles, including liver enzyme elevation and infection rates, were monitored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The DFPP group (n = 81) demonstrated a significant clinical response, with a median EDSS improvement of 0.5 (IQR 0.0-1.0) points. The response rate (defined as ΔEDSS > 0) was 66.7%, with 33.3% (27/81), 18.5% (15/81), and 14.8% (12/81) of patients achieving improvements of 0.5, 1.0, and ≥ 1.5 points, respectively. This was accompanied by a marked reduction in serum immunoglobulins (IgG: 11.87 ± 4.39 to 3.13 ± 1.76 g/L, p < 0.001). The DFPP group and IVMP monotherapy group showed comparable efficacy, with 66.7% (54/81) and 69.2% (45/65) of patients achieving EDSS improvement, respectively (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.77, p = 0.742). The magnitude of EDSS improvement was identical between groups (median ΔEDSS 0.5 points). Combination therapy demonstrated particular utility in severe cases (median baseline EDSS 5.0 [IQR 3.5-6.5]). Adverse events were fewer with DFPP than with IVMP (19.8% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.059).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DFPP exhibited comparable effectiveness to IVMP in improving disability during NMOSD acute attacks, with a trend towards a more favorable safety profile. The combination of DFPP and IVMP may benefit severe cases. These findings support DFPP as a viable therapeutic option, particularly for patients with high baseline disability or steroid-refractory disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":19216,"journal":{"name":"Neurology and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-025-00835-6","RegionNum":3,"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

Introduction: While double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) and intravenously administered methylprednisolone (IVMP) are both established treatments for acute attacks of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), their comparative efficacy and safety profiles remain a critical area of investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse events of DFPP versus IVMP in patients with NMOSD, with a focus on disability improvement and treatment tolerability.

Methods: A prospective single-center cohort study was performed with 146 patients with NMOSD, who were treated with DFPP, IVMP, and combination therapy (DFPP + IVMP). Primary efficacy was measured by changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores (ΔEDSS). Secondary outcomes included Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Safety profiles, including liver enzyme elevation and infection rates, were monitored.

Results: The DFPP group (n = 81) demonstrated a significant clinical response, with a median EDSS improvement of 0.5 (IQR 0.0-1.0) points. The response rate (defined as ΔEDSS > 0) was 66.7%, with 33.3% (27/81), 18.5% (15/81), and 14.8% (12/81) of patients achieving improvements of 0.5, 1.0, and ≥ 1.5 points, respectively. This was accompanied by a marked reduction in serum immunoglobulins (IgG: 11.87 ± 4.39 to 3.13 ± 1.76 g/L, p < 0.001). The DFPP group and IVMP monotherapy group showed comparable efficacy, with 66.7% (54/81) and 69.2% (45/65) of patients achieving EDSS improvement, respectively (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.77, p = 0.742). The magnitude of EDSS improvement was identical between groups (median ΔEDSS 0.5 points). Combination therapy demonstrated particular utility in severe cases (median baseline EDSS 5.0 [IQR 3.5-6.5]). Adverse events were fewer with DFPP than with IVMP (19.8% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.059).

Conclusion: DFPP exhibited comparable effectiveness to IVMP in improving disability during NMOSD acute attacks, with a trend towards a more favorable safety profile. The combination of DFPP and IVMP may benefit severe cases. These findings support DFPP as a viable therapeutic option, particularly for patients with high baseline disability or steroid-refractory disease.

双滤过血浆置换与静脉注射甲基强的松龙治疗视神经脊髓炎急性发作的疗效比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。
虽然双滤过血浆置换(DFPP)和静脉给药甲基强龙(IVMP)都是治疗视神经脊髓炎谱系障碍(NMOSD)急性发作的既定治疗方法,但它们的相对疗效和安全性仍然是一个关键的研究领域。本研究旨在评估DFPP与IVMP在NMOSD患者中的临床结果和不良事件,重点关注残疾改善和治疗耐受性。方法:对146例NMOSD患者进行前瞻性单中心队列研究,这些患者分别接受DFPP、IVMP和DFPP + IVMP联合治疗。主要疗效通过扩展残疾状态量表(EDSS)评分的变化来衡量(ΔEDSS)。次要结局包括改良兰金量表(mRS)评分。安全概况,包括肝酶升高和感染率进行监测。结果:DFPP组(n = 81)表现出显著的临床疗效,EDSS中位改善0.5分(IQR为0.0-1.0)。缓解率(定义为ΔEDSS > 0)为66.7%,分别有33.3%(27/81)、18.5%(15/81)和14.8%(12/81)的患者达到0.5、1.0和≥1.5分的改善。与此同时,血清免疫球蛋白(IgG)显著降低:11.87±4.39 g/L至3.13±1.76 g/L。结论:DFPP在改善NMOSD急性发作期间的残疾方面表现出与IVMP相当的有效性,并有更有利的安全性趋势。DFPP联合IVMP可能对重症患者有益。这些发现支持DFPP作为一种可行的治疗选择,特别是对于高基线残疾或类固醇难治性疾病的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurology and Therapy
Neurology and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
103
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Neurology and Therapy aims to provide reliable and inclusive, rapid publication for all therapy related research for neurological indications, supporting the timely dissemination of research with a global reach, to help advance scientific discovery and support clinical practice. Neurology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of neurological and psychiatric therapies, (also covering surgery and devices). Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also welcomed. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial designs, communications and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world. Neurology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research. Rapid Publication The journal’s rapid publication timelines aim for a peer review decision within 2 weeks of submission. If an article is accepted, it will be published online 3-4 weeks from acceptance. These rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who closely manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with rapid peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model, this allows for the rapid and efficient communication of the latest research and reviews to support scientific discovery and clinical practice. Open Access All articles published by Neurology and Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning that authors will always have a personal point of contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. We also encourage pre-submission enquiries and are always happy to provide a confidential assessment of manuscripts. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Neurology and Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €5250/$6000/£4300. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case-by-case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviews conflict, an Editorial Board Member will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed. Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised, it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor, and authors are welcome to make rebuttals against individual reviewer comments, if appropriate. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors'' or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Please see here for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Neurology and Therapy is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact managing editor Lydia Alborn at lydia.alborn@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信