MedElevator
Войти в исследования Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021
Do we always need to treat patients with spinal muscular atrophy? A personal view and experience.
Письмо в редакциюНазвание 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.
Agosto Caterina, Salamon Eleonora, Divisic Antuan, Benedetti Francesca, Giacomelli Luca, Shah Aashni, Perilongo Giorgio, Benini Franca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We report the clinical outcomes observed in our patients with SMA type 1 or 2 receiving nusinersen, and we comment on the ethical implications of this treatment, in line with our results and those reported by Audic et al. in their analysis published in the Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.
METHODS: We analyzed records of all children with a genetically diagnosed SMA and clinically confirmed diagnosis of SMA Type 1 or 2 to whom nusinersen was offered. Follow-up lasted 30 months.
RESULTS: Among the 17 children with SMA type 1, 6 interrupted treatment with nusinersen due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 11 patients, 9 are responding to therapy, though multidisciplinary complex care is still required. All those children started nusinersen at a very early age. Eighteen patients with SMA type 2 received nusinersen; five required treatment interruption. The other 13 patients are still on nusinersen therapy, and 6 are responders. Among the seven non-responders, only two met the inclusion criteria of the pivotal trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis further supports the findings reported in the study by Audic et al. We believe that a wider use of nusinersen in clinical practice would require a comprehensive assessment of its actual benefits weighed against the discomfort caused to patients, as well as the identification of the patients who may obtain the best benefits from this treatment.
METHODS: We analyzed records of all children with a genetically diagnosed SMA and clinically confirmed diagnosis of SMA Type 1 or 2 to whom nusinersen was offered. Follow-up lasted 30 months.
RESULTS: Among the 17 children with SMA type 1, 6 interrupted treatment with nusinersen due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. Of the remaining 11 patients, 9 are responding to therapy, though multidisciplinary complex care is still required. All those children started nusinersen at a very early age. Eighteen patients with SMA type 2 received nusinersen; five required treatment interruption. The other 13 patients are still on nusinersen therapy, and 6 are responders. Among the seven non-responders, only two met the inclusion criteria of the pivotal trial.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis further supports the findings reported in the study by Audic et al. We believe that a wider use of nusinersen in clinical practice would require a comprehensive assessment of its actual benefits weighed against the discomfort caused to patients, as well as the identification of the patients who may obtain the best benefits from this treatment.