Poster Session 1

Zarei, Kasra; David, Schneider; Pfleger, Claudia; Berman, David H.; Ledolter, J.; Poolman, Pieter; Gramlich, Oliver W.; Bailey, James; Kardon, Randy H.

doi:10.1177/1352458518798582

Cited by 7 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…TPE is an extracorporeal blood purification technique separating plasma from blood and involves the removal of patient plasma and the replacement with another fluid. TPE treatment of isolated ON, acute RRMS, and CIS, refractory to conventional pulsed IVMPS, has been evaluated in several studies [19,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Unfortunately, studies assessing functional outcomes of apheresis treatment used different outcome measures, usually referring to either the EDSS or its FSS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, studies assessing functional outcomes of apheresis treatment used different outcome measures, usually referring to either the EDSS or its FSS. Reasoning that the most sensitive outcome was likely to be the one that addressed relapse-related disability, several studies primarily assessed changes in the ‘target neurologic deficit’ (TND), defined as the predominant symptom matching the FSS [19,34,35,38,42]. To simplify the statistical analysis, the majority of the reviewed studies classified recovery according to the response categories ‘no, mild, moderate, and marked’ (Table 1) [19,34,35,36,38,41,43,44,45].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Satisfying treatment success was mainly defined as ‘marked to moderate’ response. However, some studies also contained different classifications and/or other outcome parameters such as visual evoked potentials or gait/power scales from Weinshenker [33,39,42,46,47].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a uniform transformation of data, according to the Conway model (Figure 2), six studies were accessible, outlining the patient’s FSS before apheresis and at discharge [19,34,35,36,38,42]. In total, 181 patients were included in this analysis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, side effects reported for TPE were classified higher and were apparent in 24%–80% of all TPE treatments [19,33,34,35,36,38,39,42]. In particular, the risk of apheresis-related AEs with CTCAE categories I–III was higher for TPE than IA.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Therapeutic Apheresis in Acute Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs—A Systematic Review

Rolfes

Pfeuffer

Ruck

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most abundant inflammatory demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system. Despite recent advances in its long-term immunomodulatory treatment, MS patients still suffer from relapses, significantly contributing to disability accrual. In recent years, apheresis procedures such as therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) and immunoadsorption (IA) have been recognized as two options for treating MS relapses, that do not respond to standard treatment with corticosteroids. TPE is already incorporated in most international guidelines, although evidence for its use resulted mostly from either case series or small unblinded and/or non-randomized trials. Data on IA are still sparse, but several studies indicate comparable efficacy between both apheresis procedures. This article gives an overview of the published evidence on TPE and IA in the treatment of acute relapses in MS. Further, we outline current evidence regarding individual outcome predictors, describe technical details of apheresis procedures, and discuss apheresis treatment in children and during pregnancy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Therapeutic Apheresis in Acute Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs—A Systematic Review

Rolfes

Pfeuffer

Ruck

et al. 2019

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Differentiating societal costs of disability worsening in multiple sclerosis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neurofilaments in progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Neurofilament proteins have been extensively studied in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, where they are promising biomarkers of disease activity and treatment response. Their role in progressive multiple sclerosis, where there is a particularly urgent need for improved biomarkers, is less clear. The objectives of this systematic review are to summarise the literature on neurofilament light and heavy in progressive multiple sclerosis, addressing key questions. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus identified 355 potential sources. 76 relevant sources were qualitatively reviewed using QUADAS-2 criteria, and 17 were identified as at low risk of bias. We summarise the findings from all relevant sources, and separately from the 17 high-quality studies. Results Differences in neurofilament light between relapsing-remitting and progressive multiple sclerosis appear to be explained by differences in covariates. Neurofilament light is consistently associated with current inflammatory activity and future brain atrophy in progressive multiple sclerosis, and is consistently shown to be a marker of treatment response with immunosuppressive disease-modifying therapies. Associations with current or future disability are inconsistent, and there is no evidence of NFL being a responsive marker of purportedly neuroprotective treatments. Evidence on neurofilament heavy is more limited and inconsistent. Conclusions Neurofilament light has shown consistent utility as a biomarker of neuroinflammation, future brain atrophy and immunosuppressive treatment response at a group level. Neither neurofilament light or heavy has shown a consistent treatment response to neuroprotective disease-modifying therapies, which will require further data from successful randomised controlled trials.

show abstract

Poster Session 1

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Therapeutic Apheresis in Acute Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs—A Systematic Review

Therapeutic Apheresis in Acute Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Current Evidence and Unmet Needs—A Systematic Review

Differentiating societal costs of disability worsening in multiple sclerosis

Neurofilaments in progressive multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About