多发性硬化症患者接受纳他珠单抗或利妥昔单抗治疗后疲劳程度和处理速度的比较研究。

IF 2.5 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Johan Hellgren, Maria Compagno Strandberg, Kristina Källén, Anders Svenningsson
{"title":"多发性硬化症患者接受纳他珠单抗或利妥昔单抗治疗后疲劳程度和处理速度的比较研究。","authors":"Johan Hellgren, Maria Compagno Strandberg, Kristina Källén, Anders Svenningsson","doi":"10.1177/20552173241252566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fatigue is the most debilitating symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Natalizumab and rituximab are the most used MS disease modifying therapies in Sweden, but comparative data on the effect on fatigue is sparse.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Primary objective was to compare fatigue levels between patients on natalizumab and rituximab. As secondary objective, we assessed processing speed, an attention domain quality, between treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with relapsing-remitting MS and >24 months treatment duration were identified in the Swedish MS-registry. Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions (FSMC) and processing speed using Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>128 patients were enrolled (natalizumab: 56, rituximab: 72). No significant differences in FSMC were found when adjusting for potential confounders (p = 0.936), with age having the biggest impact, correlating with increased fatigue. Individuals on natalizumab performed significantly better on SDMT at cross-section (natalizumab 64.7, rituximab 56.2; p = 0.003), with an improvement from treatment initiation, compared to rituximab (change: natalizumab 8.9, rituximab -1.0; p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no difference in fatigue levels between natalizumab and rituximab cohorts. Patients treated with natalizumab showed significantly better results on SDMT than patients on rituximab.</p>","PeriodicalId":18961,"journal":{"name":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","volume":"10 2","pages":"20552173241252566"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11131408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative study of fatigue and processing speed in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with natalizumab or rituximab.\",\"authors\":\"Johan Hellgren, Maria Compagno Strandberg, Kristina Källén, Anders Svenningsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552173241252566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fatigue is the most debilitating symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Natalizumab and rituximab are the most used MS disease modifying therapies in Sweden, but comparative data on the effect on fatigue is sparse.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Primary objective was to compare fatigue levels between patients on natalizumab and rituximab. As secondary objective, we assessed processing speed, an attention domain quality, between treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with relapsing-remitting MS and >24 months treatment duration were identified in the Swedish MS-registry. Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions (FSMC) and processing speed using Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>128 patients were enrolled (natalizumab: 56, rituximab: 72). No significant differences in FSMC were found when adjusting for potential confounders (p = 0.936), with age having the biggest impact, correlating with increased fatigue. Individuals on natalizumab performed significantly better on SDMT at cross-section (natalizumab 64.7, rituximab 56.2; p = 0.003), with an improvement from treatment initiation, compared to rituximab (change: natalizumab 8.9, rituximab -1.0; p = 0.002).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found no difference in fatigue levels between natalizumab and rituximab cohorts. Patients treated with natalizumab showed significantly better results on SDMT than patients on rituximab.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"20552173241252566\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11131408/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173241252566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173241252566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:疲劳是多发性硬化症(MS)患者最令人衰弱的症状。在瑞典,纳他珠单抗和利妥昔单抗是最常用的多发性硬化症疾病调整疗法,但有关其对疲劳影响的比较数据却很少:主要目的是比较纳他珠单抗和利妥昔单抗患者的疲劳程度。作为次要目标,我们评估了治疗组之间的处理速度(一种注意力领域的质量):在这项瑞典多中心横断面研究中,瑞典多发性硬化症登记处确定了治疗时间超过 24 个月的复发性缓解型多发性硬化症患者。疲劳程度采用运动和认知功能疲劳量表(FSMC)进行评估,处理速度采用符号数字模型测试(SDMT)进行评估:结果:共招募了 128 名患者(纳他珠单抗:56 人;利妥昔单抗:72 人)。在对潜在的混杂因素进行调整后,发现FSMC没有明显差异(p = 0.936),其中年龄影响最大,与疲劳程度增加相关。与利妥昔单抗相比(变化:纳他珠单抗为8.9,利妥昔单抗为-1.0;p = 0.002),服用纳他珠单抗的患者在SDMT横断面上的表现明显更好(纳他珠单抗为64.7,利妥昔单抗为56.2;p = 0.003),从治疗开始就有所改善:我们发现纳他珠单抗和利妥昔单抗两组患者的疲劳程度没有差异。纳他珠单抗患者的SDMT结果明显优于利妥昔单抗患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative study of fatigue and processing speed in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with natalizumab or rituximab.

Background: Fatigue is the most debilitating symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Natalizumab and rituximab are the most used MS disease modifying therapies in Sweden, but comparative data on the effect on fatigue is sparse.

Objective: Primary objective was to compare fatigue levels between patients on natalizumab and rituximab. As secondary objective, we assessed processing speed, an attention domain quality, between treatment groups.

Method: In this Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with relapsing-remitting MS and >24 months treatment duration were identified in the Swedish MS-registry. Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions (FSMC) and processing speed using Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT).

Results: 128 patients were enrolled (natalizumab: 56, rituximab: 72). No significant differences in FSMC were found when adjusting for potential confounders (p = 0.936), with age having the biggest impact, correlating with increased fatigue. Individuals on natalizumab performed significantly better on SDMT at cross-section (natalizumab 64.7, rituximab 56.2; p = 0.003), with an improvement from treatment initiation, compared to rituximab (change: natalizumab 8.9, rituximab -1.0; p = 0.002).

Conclusion: We found no difference in fatigue levels between natalizumab and rituximab cohorts. Patients treated with natalizumab showed significantly better results on SDMT than patients on rituximab.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信