Simonsen Cecilia Smith, Flemmen Heidi Øyen, Broch Line, Brekke Kamilla, Brunborg Cathrine, Berg-Hansen Pål, Celius Elisabeth Gulowsen
Department of Neurology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen, Norway.
Department of Neurology, Hospital Telemark HF, Skien, Norway.
Front Neurol. 2022 Nov 14;13:1034056. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1034056. eCollection 2022.
No evidence of disease activity with three components (NEDA-3) is achieved if the person with MS (pwMS) has no new MRI lesions, no new relapses and no change in Expanded disability status scale (EDSS) over 1 year. Whether NEDA-3 is a good tool in measuring disease activity is up for discussion, but it is superior to the individual parameters separately and user-friendly. There is disagreement on whether NEDA-3 is a good predictor of long-term disability.
This is a retrospective cohort study using real-world data with limited selection bias from the complete MS population at two hospitals in the southeast of Norway. We included pwMS diagnosed between 2006 and 2017 who had enough information to determine time to failure of NEDA-3 after diagnosis.
Of 536 pwMS, only 38% achieved NEDA 1 year after diagnosis. PwMS achieving NEDA were more likely to be started on a high efficacy drug as the initial drug, but there were no demographic differences. Mean time to NEDA failure was 3.3 (95% CI 2.9-3.7) years. Starting a high efficiacy therapy was associated with an increased risk of sustaining NEDA as compared to those receiving moderate efficacy therapy. PwMS who achieved NEDA at year one had a mean time to EDSS 6 of 33.8 (95% CI 30.9-36.8) years vs. 30.8 (95% CI 25.0-36.6) years in pwMS who did not achieve NEDA, p < 0.001. When rebaselining NEDA 1 year after diagnosis, 52.2% achieved NEDA in the 1st year after rebaseline, mean time to NEDA failure was 3.4 (95% CI 3.0-3.7) years and mean time to EDSS 6 was 44.5 (95% CI 40.4-48.5) years in pwMS achieving NEDA vs. 29.6 (95% CI 24.2-35.0) years in pwMS not achieving NEDA, < 0.001. After rebaseline, pwMS with a high efficacy therapy as the initial drug had a mean time from diagnosis to NEDA fail of 4.8 years (95% CI 3.9-5.8) vs. 3.1 years (95% CI 2.7-3.5) in pwMS started on a moderate efficacy therapy, < 0.001. In pwMS with NEDA failure at year one, 70% failed one, 28% failed two and 2% failed three components. New MRI lesions were the most common cause of NEDA failure (63%), followed by new relapses (50%) and EDSS change (25%).
NEDA-3 from rebaseline after 1 year, once treatment is stabilized, can predict the long-term disease course in MS. Starting a high efficacy DMT is associated with longer time to NEDA failure than moderate therapies. Finally, most pwMS only fail one component and new MRI lesions are the most likely cause of NEDA failure.
如果多发性硬化症患者(pwMS)在1年内没有新的MRI病变、没有新的复发且扩展残疾状态量表(EDSS)没有变化,那么就实现了无疾病活动的三个组成部分(NEDA-3)。NEDA-3是否是衡量疾病活动的良好工具尚有争议,但它优于单独的各个参数且使用方便。关于NEDA-3是否是长期残疾的良好预测指标存在分歧。
这是一项回顾性队列研究,使用来自挪威东南部两家医院完整MS人群的真实世界数据,选择偏倚有限。我们纳入了2006年至2017年期间诊断的pwMS,他们有足够的信息来确定诊断后达到NEDA-3失败的时间。
在536例pwMS中,只有38%在诊断后1年达到NEDA。达到NEDA的pwMS更有可能开始使用高效药物作为初始药物,但在人口统计学上没有差异。达到NEDA失败的平均时间为3.3(95%CI 2.9 - 3.7)年。与接受中等疗效治疗的患者相比,开始高效治疗与维持NEDA的风险增加相关。在第1年达到NEDA的pwMS达到EDSS 6的平均时间为33.8(95%CI 30.9 - 36.8)年,而未达到NEDA的pwMS为30.8(95%CI 25.0 - 36.6)年,p < 0.001。在诊断后1年重新设定NEDA基线时,52.2%的患者在重新设定基线后的第1年达到NEDA,达到NEDA的pwMS达到NEDA失败的平均时间为3.4(95%CI 3.0 - 3.7)年,达到EDSS 6的平均时间为44.5(95%CI 40.4 - 48.5)年,而未达到NEDA的pwMS为29.6(95%CI 24.2 - 35.0)年,p < 0.001。重新设定基线后,以高效治疗作为初始药物的pwMS从诊断到NEDA失败的平均时间为4.8年(95%CI 3.9 - 5.8),而开始使用中等疗效治疗的pwMS为3.1年(95%CI 2.7 - 3.5),p < 0.001。在第1年出现NEDA失败的pwMS中,70%有一项失败,28%有两项失败,2%有三项失败。新的MRI病变是NEDA失败最常见的原因(63%),其次是新的复发(50%)和EDSS变化(25%)。
在治疗稳定1年后重新设定基线的NEDA-3可以预测MS的长期病程。开始使用高效疾病修饰治疗(DMT)与达到NEDA失败的时间比中等治疗更长相关。最后,大多数pwMS只有一项失败,新的MRI病变是NEDA失败最可能的原因。