Evidence Hub

Disease progression and prognostic factors in multiple system atrophy: A prospective cohort study

A. Foubert-Samier, A. P. Traon, Florian Guillet, M. Le-Goff, C. Helmer, F. Tison, O. Rascol, C. Proust-Lima et al.

Neurobiology of Disease, 2020

261 participants · 88 citations

Abstract

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare neurodegenerative disease, with limited understanding of disease progression and prognostic factors. We leveraged the data of the largest prospective cohort of MSA to study both clinical progression and survival and assess their determinants. All consecutive patients seen at the French Reference Centre for MSA since 2007 were included in a prospective cohort with an annual follow-up including the Unified MSA Rating Scale (UMSARS). We used joint models to evaluate the risk of death, the mean trajectory of each UMSARS subscale and to determine the potential factors. Investigated factors included gender, age at baseline, MSA subtype, diagnosis certainty, type of first symptoms and the duration between symptom onset and the first visit. Among the 261 MSA patients included in our cohort, the median duration of clinical follow-up was 2.1 years (up to 10.3 years) and the median survival was 4.0 years since the first visit. Main factors for poor survival were the progression over time of UMSARS score (I + II and IV) and the severity of orthostatic hypotension. MSA subtype had no effect on progression or survival. The UMSARS I + II score progressed faster over time in subjects with autonomic dysfunction as the initial feature and in women. Despite a faster progression, women and men had similar survival. From this large MSA cohort, we confirm the rapid progression and poor prognosis of MSA. We provide additional evidence for a negative impact…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 261 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free