Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35872571›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of neurology2022

Nusinersen in adult patients with 5q spinal muscular atrophy: A multicenter observational cohorts' study.

Juan F Vázquez-Costa, Mónica Povedano, Andrés E Nascimiento-Osorio, Antonio Moreno Escribano, Solange Kapetanovic Garcia, Raul Dominguez, Jessica M Exposito, Laura González, Carla Marco, Julita Medina Castillo and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Juan F Vázquez-CostaNeuromuscular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3043-7938
Mónica PovedanoMotor Neuron Unit, Neurology Department, Bellvitge Hospital-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.
Andrés E Nascimiento-OsorioNeuromuscular Unit, Neuropediatric Department, Institut de Recerca Pediàtrica Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonio Moreno EscribanoNeuromuscular Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain.
Solange Kapetanovic GarciaALS and Neuromuscular Unit, Neurology Department, Hospital Universitario Basurto-OSI Bilbao, Bilbao, Spain.
Raul DominguezMotor Neuron Unit, Neurology Department, Bellvitge Hospital-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.
Jessica M ExpositoNeuromuscular Unit, Neuropediatric Department, Institut de Recerca Pediàtrica Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura GonzálezMotor Neuron Unit, Neurology Department, Bellvitge Hospital-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.
Carla MarcoMotor Neuron Unit, Neurology Department, Bellvitge Hospital-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.
Julita Medina CastilloPhysical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Hospital Sant Joan de Deu, Barcelona, Spain.
Nuria MuelasNeuromuscular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2349-7481
Daniel Natera de BenitoNeuromuscular Unit, Neuropediatric Department, Institut de Recerca Pediàtrica Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Barcelona, Spain.
Nancy Carolina Ñungo GarzónNeuromuscular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Inmaculada Pitarch CastellanoNeuromuscular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3864-7374
Teresa SevillaNeuromuscular Unit, Department of Neurology, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Valencia, Spain.
David HervásDepartment of Applied Statistics and Operational Research and Quality, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Bellvitge University Hospital · ESHospital Sant Joan de Déu Barcelona · ESHospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe · ESUniversitat de València · ESHospital de Basurto · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca · ESUniversitat Politècnica de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of nusinersen in adult 5q spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) patients.

methodsPatients older than 15 years and followed for at least 6 months with one motor scale (Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded, HFMSE; Revised Upper Limb Module, RULM) in five referral centers were included. The clinical and patients' global impression of change (CGI-C and PGI-C) were recorded in treated patients at the last visit. Functional scales (Egen Klassification, EK2; Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale, ALSFRS-R) and the percentage predicted forced vital capacity were collected when available.

resultsSeventy-nine SMA patients (39 treated with nusinersen) were included. Compared with untreated patients, treated patients showed a significant improvement of 2 points (±0.46) in RULM (p < 0.001) after 6 months. After a mean follow-up of 16 months, nusinersen treatment was associated with a significant improvement in HFMSE (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, p = 0.006), the 6-min walk test (OR = 1.07, p < 0.001) and the EK2 (OR = 0.81, p = 0.001). Compared with untreated patients, more treated patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all scales, but these differences were statistically significant only for RULM (p = 0.033), ALSFRS-R (p = 0.005) and EK2 (p < 0.001). According to the CGI-C and PGI-C, 64.1% and 61.5% of treated patients improved with treatment. Being a non-sitter was associated with less response to treatment, whilst a longer time of treatment was associated with better response. Most treated patients (77%) presented at least one adverse event, mostly mild.

conclusionsNusinersen treatment is associated with some improvements in adult SMA patients. Most severely affected patients with complex spines are probably those with the most unfavorable risk-benefit ratio.

Indexed as

Muscular Atrophy, SpinalSpinal Muscular Atrophies of ChildhoodAdultHumansInjections, SpinalOligonucleotidesnusinersenOligonucleotidesadultscohort studynusinersenspinal muscular atrophytreatment

Identifiers

PMID35872571
PMCPMC9796289
OpenAlexW4287092494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.