Kremenchutzky M, Cottrell D, Rice G, Hader W, Baskerville J, Koopman W, Ebers G C
Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
Brain. 1999 Oct;122 ( Pt 10):1941-50. doi: 10.1093/brain/122.10.1941.
Classifications of multiple sclerosis subtypes have been largely based on clinical phenomenology. Nevertheless, definitions of relapse, remission and progression have been imprecise. Recently an international consensus group, as part of a reclassification of disease subtypes, recommended dropping the term 'relapsing-progressive' (RP) and retaining the term 'progressive-relapsing' (PR) multiple sclerosis. The term 'RP' multiple sclerosis had been applied when the early course combined both relapses and progression and was believed to identify some patients with a worse than average outcome. The PR group consisted of patients with primary progressive disease who later in their course developed relapses. Since the terminology has been largely arbitrary, we have evaluated the validity of the terms 'RP' and 'PR' multiple sclerosis in the context of long-term outcome within a large population-based cohort of progressive multiple sclerosis patients seen at the London Multiple Sclerosis Clinic (Canada) between 1972 and 1984. Mean follow-up of the entire cohort was 25 years. Designation of RP multiple sclerosis did identify a more rapidly progressive subgroup. To realign these natural history data with consensus recommendations, these patients were reassigned to secondary progressive (SP) or to primary progressive (PP) multiple sclerosis, with progression defined as at least 1 year of progressive deterioration. PP multiple sclerosis patients with relapses after a year were designated as having PR multiple sclerosis. Relapses in primary progressive multiple sclerosis occurred in 27.8% of patients at some point even two to three decades after onset. In general these relapses were mild and remitting, but served to blur the distinction between progressive and relapsing-remitting disease. The long-term outcomes of time to Kurtzke disability scores (DSS) of 3, 6, 8 and 10 were compared among the progressive subtypes. Times to these disability end-points and to death were not different between PR and PP multiple sclerosis. Survival curves for progressive patients have been amended to incorporate the reassignment of PR multiple sclerosis patients into the PP group and the RP multiple sclerosis patients into the PP and SP subgroups. The time to reach DDS 3, 6, 8 and 10 for a population-based cohort of primary and secondary progressive patients resulting from the elimination of the categories of RP multiple sclerosis and PR multiple sclerosis has been established. These results provide justification for retaining only PP and SP multiple sclerosis as the subgroups of progressive disease.
多发性硬化症亚型的分类很大程度上基于临床现象学。然而,复发、缓解和进展的定义一直不够精确。最近,一个国际共识小组在对疾病亚型进行重新分类时,建议摒弃“复发-进展型”(RP)这一术语,保留“进展-复发型”(PR)多发性硬化症这一术语。“RP”型多发性硬化症用于描述疾病早期既有复发又有进展的情况,人们认为这类患者的预后比一般患者更差。PR组由原发性进展性疾病患者组成,这些患者在病程后期出现了复发。由于术语在很大程度上具有随意性,我们在一个以人群为基础的队列中评估了“RP”和“PR”型多发性硬化症这两个术语在长期预后方面的有效性,该队列中的患者均为1972年至1984年间在加拿大伦敦多发性硬化症诊所就诊的进展性多发性硬化症患者。整个队列的平均随访时间为25年。RP型多发性硬化症的认定确实识别出了一个进展更快的亚组。为了使这些自然史数据与共识建议保持一致,这些患者被重新归类为继发进展型(SP)或原发进展型(PP)多发性硬化症,进展定义为至少1年的进行性恶化。发病一年后出现复发的PP型多发性硬化症患者被认定为患有PR型多发性硬化症。原发性进展性多发性硬化症患者中,甚至在发病两到三十年的某个时间点,有27.8%的患者出现了复发。总体而言,这些复发症状较轻且可缓解,但模糊了进展型和复发-缓解型疾病之间的区别。我们比较了进展性亚型之间达到库茨克残疾评分(DSS)3、6、8和10的时间的长期预后情况。PR型和PP型多发性硬化症患者达到这些残疾终点和死亡的时间没有差异。进展性患者的生存曲线已经修正,将PR型多发性硬化症患者重新归类到PP组,将RP型多发性硬化症患者重新归类到PP和SP亚组。已经确定了一个以人群为基础的原发和继发进展性患者队列达到DDS 3、6、8和10的时间,该队列排除了RP型和PR型多发性硬化症类别。这些结果为仅保留PP型和SP型多发性硬化症作为进展性疾病的亚组提供了依据。