Search

Background: People with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (pwSPMS) experience increasing disability, which impacts negatively on their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our aims were to assess the impact of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) on functional status and HRQoL and describe the clinical profile in this population., Methods: DISCOVER is an observational, cross-sectional, multicenter study with retrospective data collection in real-world clinical practice in Spain. Sociodemographic and clinical variables, functional and cognitive scales, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and direct healthcare, and non-healthcare and indirect costs were collected., Results: A total of 297 evaluable pwSPMS with a EDSS score between 3-6.5 participated: 62.3 % were female and 18.9 % had active SPMS. At the study visit, 77 % of them presented an Expanded Disability Scale Score (EDSS) of 6-6.5. Nearly 40 % did not receive any disease-modifying treatment. Regarding the working situation, 61.6 % were inactive due to disability. PROs: 99.3 % showed mobility impairment in EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels, and about 60 % reported physical impact on the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29. Fatigue was present in 76.1 %, and almost 40 % reported anxiety or depression. The Symbol Digit Modalities Test was used to assess cognitive impairment; 80 % of the patients were below the mean score. Participants who presented relapses two years before and had high EDSS scores had a more negative impact on HRQoL. PwSPMS with a negative impact on HRQoL presented a higher cost burden, primarily due to indirect costs., Conclusions: PwSPMS experience a negative impact on their HRQoL, with a high physical impact, fatigue, cognitive impairment, and a high burden of indirect costs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease. People with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) experience chronic fatigue which is difficult to deal with therapeutically and greatly affects health-related quality of life (QOL). PwMS are aware of the lack of generalized dietary advice related to their disease, leading to self-experimentation with diet. It is necessary to provide objective information about dietary interventions for pwMS. We aim to provide an objective synthesis of the evidence for efficacy and safety of specific diets in pwMS through a rapid review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), examining symptomatic fatigue (MFIS), QOL, Expanded-Disability-Status-Scale (EDSS), and severe adverse events., Methods: We have carried out a rapid review (MEDLINE and EMBASE) up to December 2021, with PRISMA methodology, and meta-analyses, of (RCTs). All statistical analyses were performed using the comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) -RStudio 4.1.3. The analysis used weighted mean differences (WMD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model to compare the effects of the dietary intervention with the control., Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these eight studies, five analyzed EDSS, three MFIS, and three QOL. A total of 515 patients were analyzed. These meta-analyses cumulative evidence support that dietary intervention is associated with a trend of reduction in fatigue (308 patients studied) -the difference between means (SMD) of the control group and intervention group was -2,033, 95%-IC (-3,195, -0,152), a p-value of 0.0341)-, an increase in QOL (77 patients studied), no significant effect on EDSS (337 patients studied), and no severe adverse events., Conclusions: It is difficult to reach a high level of evidence in dietary studies. Our findings show that dietary intervention is associated with a trend of reduction in fatigue in MS. Taking into account the potential of dietary interventions and the benefit/risk ratio in their favor, neurologists must be aware of the great importance of making interventions on diet in MS if necessary. There are dietary interventions with some evidence of benefit for patients with MS, which could be chosen based on adherence, patient preferences, and individual outcomes. Large prospective clinical trials are needed to shed further light on this topic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Cognitive impairment (CI) has a prevalence of 45-70% in people with multiple sclerosis (MS), producing a negative impact on their quality of life, personal life, and work. Early detection of CI has become an important aspect to be considered for an adequate follow-up, to optimize social adaptation and to implement specific cognitive rehabilitation strategies. The aim of this work is to propose a suitable cognitive evaluation of patients with MS based on available and efficient tools for diagnosis and monitoring purposes well supported by literature review and clinical experience., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of professionals from the field of neurology, neuropsychology, and neuroimaging performed a literature review of the topic of cognitive impairment assessment. This was combined and completed with their clinical experience to produce a set of recommendations., Results: Some limitations to cognitive evaluation are described: shortage of time and resources during the neurology consultation, scarceness or absence of specialized professionals' availability, importance of tests adaptation, and doubts about its use to define therapeutic efficiency. We recommend a baseline and annual screening evaluation, and we suggest a baseline and periodic neuropsychological assessment. The latter ought to change to a recommendation with the presence of either positive screening test, or subjective to cognitive complaints, screening-test results and patient or family report mismatch, or in specific social/work situations., Conclusions: Cognitive evaluation should be performed on all patients diagnosed with MS and throughout follow-up. It is necessary to support the creation of multidisciplinary MS teams to optimize the evaluation and follow-up of MS patients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is primarily an inflammatory and degenerative disease of the central nervous system, triggered by unknown environmental factors in patients with predisposing genetic risk profiles. The prevention of neurological disability is one of the essential goals to be achieved in a patient with MS. However, the pathogenic mechanisms driving the progressive phase of the disease remain unknown. It was described that the pathophysiological mechanisms associated with disease progression are present from disease onset. In daily practice, there is a lack of clinical, radiological, or biological markers that favor an early detection of the disease's progression. Different definitions of disability progression were used in clinical trials. According to the most descriptive, progression was defined as a minimum increase in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) of 1.5, 1.0, or 0.5 from a baseline level of 0, 1.0-5.0, and 5.5, respectively. Nevertheless, the EDSS is not the most sensitive scale to assess progression, and there is no consensus regarding any specific diagnostic criteria for disability progression. This review document discusses the current pathophysiological concepts associated with MS progression, the different measurement strategies, the biomarkers associated with disability progression, and the available pharmacologic therapeutic approaches., Competing Interests: VM-L has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Almirall, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, Terumo, Sanofi and Teva. LB-R has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Biogen, Sanofy-Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Teva. JC-P has received compensation for consulting services from Roche. SE-M has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Biogen Idec, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, and Teva. JF-L has received compensation for consulting services from Roche. LF has received compensation for consulting services from Roche, Merck, Novartis and Genzyme, for speaking honoraria from Roche, Merck and Novartis, and for traveling grants from Genzyme, Roche and Novartis. YH has received compensation for consulting services from Roche and Merck, Novartis, Teva and Genzyme, for speaking, honoraria from Roche, Merck and Novartis, and for traveling grants from Merck, Genzyme, Roche and Novartis. NT has received compensation for consulting services, traveling grants and speaking honoraria from Bayer Schering Pharma, Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, and Roche. AV-J has received investigation grants Juan Rodes (JR16/00024) from Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and has received compensation for consulting services, participation in advisory boards, and speaking honoraria from Novartis, Stendhal, Roche, Teva, Biogen, and Genzyme-Sanofi. FP-M has received compensation for consulting services and speaking honoraria from Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme y Biogen, and speaking honoraria from Novartis, Almirall and Teva., (Copyright © 2021 Meca-Lallana, Berenguer-Ruiz, Carreres-Polo, Eichau-Madueño, Ferrer-Lozano, Forero, Higueras, Téllez Lara, Vidal-Jordana and Pérez-Miralles.)