Domain-specific cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Methods of cognitive measurements in multiple sclerosis (MS) are not standardized. We aimed to identify the prevalence of cognitive domain-specific impairment (DSI) in MS by using subtests of the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests (BRB-N) with analyzing different cutoff values. METHODS: The systematic review and meta-analysis were registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021287004). The systematic literature search was performed via PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL on 24 October 2021. Inclusion criteria were adults of different MS subtypes (CIS, RRMS, PPMS, and SPMS) with the condition of distinct DSI measured by BRB-N. Pediatric MS, computerized versions of BRB-N, and patients receiving steroids were excluded. Primary outcome was pooled prevalence rates of impaired patients within each cutoff and MS subtype, with 95% confidence interval, I-squared statistics for heterogeneity, and chi-squared test for subgroup differences. Risk of bias was assessed using the "JBI Quality Assessment Tool for Prevalence Studies." RESULTS: In 48 eligible observational studies (n = 3431 patients), the three most prevalent thresholds were the 2.0 SD and 1.5 SD below the mean of normative values, and the score below the fifth percentile of the normative values. A progressively increasing worsening of the overall DSI was observed from CIS, moving toward RRMS, PPMS, and SPMS. INTERPRETATION: Cognitive impairment is observed in all MS phenotypes, with varying degrees. Due to several potential influencing factors, our comprehensive literature review has not revealed consistent findings, and we, therefore, recommend considering a more sophisticated, "individual referencing" approach, acknowledging the diverse clinical and sociodemographic characteristics among populations and disparities in cognitive testing.

Nabiximols is Efficient as Add-On Treatment for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Refractory to Standard Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity affects 54% of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients at disease onset, but this rate gradually increases with disease progression. Spasticity does not fully respond to standard treatment in one-third of the patients. OBJECTIVE: Our systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether add-on nabiximols, can improve MS-associated refractory spasticity. METHODS: The systematic literature search was performed in Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Embase, on 15/10/2021, without restrictions. We included in the review blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of nabiximols in adult MS patients with refractory spasticity, by comparison with placebo. The primary outcome was responder rate by spasticity numerical rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were spasticity-related parameters. We used random effect models to calculate odds ratios (OR) or mean differences and the corresponding 95% CI. Bias-factors were assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2). (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021282177). RESULTS: We identified 9 eligible articles, of which 7 (1128 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The spasticity numerical rating scale (NRS) was significantly higher in the nabiximols group than in the placebo group (OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.39; 4.18)). Secondary outcomes were in accordance with our primary results. At least some concerns were detected in the risk of bias analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that nabiximols is efficient in MS associated spasticity, refractory to standard treatment and it may be considered as add-on symptomatic therapy. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to establish the optimal treatment protocol - dose, duration, moment of initiation, disease type.

Plasma Exchange versus Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Worsening Myasthenia Gravis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Special Attention to Faster Relapse Control.

Currently used rescue interventions to prevent rapid myasthenic deterioration are plasma exchange (PLEX) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). We investigated the evidence to determine whether the two methods were interchangeable or whether one was superior to the other. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021285985). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of PLEX and IVIG in patients with moderate-to-severe myasthenia gravis (MG) were included. Five major databases were systematically searched (PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for adverse events and mean differences (MD) for changes in quantitative myasthenia gravis scores (QMG). Three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Two investigating 114 patients in total were eligible for meta-analysis to analyze efficacy and safety. For the change in QMG score, the MD was -2.8 (95% CI: -5.614-0.113), with PLEX performing better. For adverse events, an OR of 1.04 was found (95% CI: 0.25-4.27). This study demonstrated a low risk of bias in evaluating treatment efficacy but indicated a high risk of bias in assessing procedural safety outcomes. Although the results did not show any significant difference, there was a tendency indicating faster efficacy of PLEX in the first two weeks of treatment. In such a critical clinical condition, this tendency may be clinically meaningful, but further studies should clarify this benefit.