Khan Omar, Miller Aaron E, Tornatore Carlo, Phillips J Theodore, Barnes Christopher J
Wayne State University School of Medicine (OK), Detroit, MI; Mount Sinai School of Medicine (AEM), New York, NY; Georgetown University Hospital (CT), Washington, DC; Baylor Institute for Immunology Research (JTP), Dallas, TX; and Infusion Communications (CJB), Haddam, CT.
Neurol Clin Pract. 2012 Mar;2(1):58-66. doi: 10.1212/CPJ.0b013e31824cb0ac.
A modified Delphi process assessed current multiple sclerosis (MS) practice patterns for secondary and primary progressive MS (secondary progressive MS [SPMS] and primary progressive MS [PPMS]). In early 2011, 2 sequential, case-based surveys were administered to 75 US MS specialists to assess treatment practices and patient management. Respondents were from geographically diverse US academic (42%) and community (58%) treatment centers. There was consensus (≥75% agreement in responses) to switch disease-modifying therapies for a patient with SPMS with both MRI activity and disability progression (95%), but no consensus on treatment selection. For PPMS, responses supported diagnosis using spinal MRI (100%) and lumbar puncture (75%) and treatment initiation in patients with brain gadolinium-enhancing lesions with or without spinal cord lesions (85%); however, there was no consensus on treatment initiation with spinal cord lesions alone or initial therapy. The lack of agreement among US MS experts on the best treatment approaches for SPMS or PPMS highlights the need for effective therapies.
一种改良的德尔菲法评估了继发进展型多发性硬化(SPMS)和原发进展型多发性硬化(PPMS)的当前多发性硬化(MS)实践模式。2011年初,对75位美国MS专家进行了2次连续的基于病例的调查,以评估治疗实践和患者管理情况。受访者来自美国不同地理位置的学术(42%)和社区(58%)治疗中心。对于有MRI活动和残疾进展的SPMS患者,在更换疾病修正治疗方面存在共识(应答中≥75%的一致性)(95%),但在治疗选择上没有共识。对于PPMS,应答支持使用脊髓MRI(100%)和腰椎穿刺(75%)进行诊断,以及在有或无脊髓病变的脑钆增强病变患者中开始治疗(85%);然而,对于仅脊髓病变的治疗起始或初始治疗没有共识。美国MS专家在SPMS或PPMS的最佳治疗方法上缺乏一致性,凸显了有效治疗方法的必要性。