Annals of palliative medicine · 2021
The efficacy of therapeutic apheresis in patients with refractory neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: a single-center retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Leiying, Zhuang Yuan, Liu Xiaomin, Xu Quangang, Zhou Lingling, Zou Liyang, Jiang Ying, Tian Jing, Yao Huan, Chi Hongxu, Qiu Xuede, Yang Tianxin, Wang Deqing, Yu Yang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) are associated with recurrent episodes of optic neuritis and transverse myelitis, often resulting in high attack-related disability. Therapeutic apheresis has been recommended as a second-line treatment for steroid-refractory NMOSD. To assess the efficacy and safety of two apheresis techniques, lymphoplasmapheresis (LPE) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), in refractory NMOSD and to provide a new treatment option for patients with refractory NMOSD.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined NMOSD patients who had undergone either LPE or TPE treatment between January 2015 and January 2018. The patients were monitored for improvements in disabilities, incidences of adverse reactions, and safety of the procedure over a one-year follow-up period. The primary outcome measures included changes in the visual outcome scale (VOS) score, the expanded disability status scale (EDSS), and the annualized relapse rate (ARR).
RESULTS: Neurological function and objective response rates were significantly improved in 76.5% of patients treated with LPE and 83.3% of patients treated with TPE. There were no significant differences in the two treatment groups (P=0.392). Similarly, there were no differences in the reduction in the relative relapse rate between the two groups (P=0.494). Adverse reactions, mostly of mild or moderate intensity, were recorded in 9.3% of procedures in 38% of patients. The most commonly observed adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two treatment cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with LPE showed improved neurological function comparable to that reported with TPE treatment. No superiority was shown for either of the apheresis techniques.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined NMOSD patients who had undergone either LPE or TPE treatment between January 2015 and January 2018. The patients were monitored for improvements in disabilities, incidences of adverse reactions, and safety of the procedure over a one-year follow-up period. The primary outcome measures included changes in the visual outcome scale (VOS) score, the expanded disability status scale (EDSS), and the annualized relapse rate (ARR).
RESULTS: Neurological function and objective response rates were significantly improved in 76.5% of patients treated with LPE and 83.3% of patients treated with TPE. There were no significant differences in the two treatment groups (P=0.392). Similarly, there were no differences in the reduction in the relative relapse rate between the two groups (P=0.494). Adverse reactions, mostly of mild or moderate intensity, were recorded in 9.3% of procedures in 38% of patients. The most commonly observed adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two treatment cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with LPE showed improved neurological function comparable to that reported with TPE treatment. No superiority was shown for either of the apheresis techniques.