ライフサイエンスコーパス: EDSS

1 EDSS Expanded Disability Status Scale and MSFC MS functi

2 EDSS remained low over time with a median of 1.5 in both

3 EDSS score correlated with TSC increases inside motor ne

4 EDSS scores increased by a median 1 point (interquartile

5 EDSS worsening was reduced by 28% (MLM), 7% (Markov) and

6 d to exist despite a difference of up to 1.0 EDSS point (two 0.5 steps), 13 SNRS points, 9 FIM points

7 nes (EDSS 4.0, 23.8 vs 15.5 years, p<0.0001; EDSS 6.0, 30.8 vs 20.4 years, p<0.0001; EDSS 8.0, 44.7 v

8 001; EDSS 6.0, 30.8 vs 20.4 years, p<0.0001; EDSS 8.0, 44.7 vs 39 years, p=0.02), but did so between

9 cale (EDSS) 4.0:8.1 vs. 17.1 years, p<0.001; EDSS 6.0: 9.6 vs. 22.1 years, p<0.001; EDSS 8.0: 20.7 vs

10 .001; EDSS 6.0: 9.6 vs. 22.1 years, p<0.001; EDSS 8.0: 20.7 vs. 39.7 years, p<0.001), but there were

11 .02]; EDSS 1.5-3: 0.95 +/- 0.04 [P < .001]; EDSS >=3.5: 0.94 +/- 0.04 [P = .001]).

12 lesions (p=0.007), new T2 lesions (p=0.015), EDSS progression (p=0.034), and relapses in patients wit

13 +/- 0.04; EDSS 0-1: 0.86 +/- 0.03 [P = .02]; EDSS 1.5-3: 0.95 +/- 0.04 [P < .001]; EDSS >=3.5: 0.94 +

14 - 0.04; EDSS 1.5-3: 1.33 +/- 0.03 [P = .03]; EDSS >=3.5: 1.30 +/- 0.04 [P = .01]) and CGM (marginal m

15 dard error, healthy controls: 0.78 +/- 0.04; EDSS 0-1: 0.86 +/- 0.03 [P = .02]; EDSS 1.5-3: 0.95 +/-

16 dard error, healthy controls: 1.46 +/- 0.04; EDSS 1.5-3: 1.33 +/- 0.03 [P = .03]; EDSS >=3.5: 1.30 +/

17 dard error, healthy controls: 1.42 +/- 0.05; EDSS >=3.5: 1.23 +/- 0.05 [P = .006]).

18 cantly higher EDSS increase during PML (0.09 EDSS points per month; p = 0.04) as compared to those wh

19 bility (an EDSS score increase of at least 1 EDSS point sustained for a minimum of 12 weeks), both an

20 tus scale (EDSS) score: EDSS(>=4.5) (n = 47, EDSS: 5.86 +/- 0.56) and EDSS(<4) (n = 52, EDSS: 3.59 +/

21 worsening (worst quartile of change, >/=4.5 EDSS points) during the 15-year interval.

22 , EDSS: 5.86 +/- 0.56) and EDSS(<4) (n = 52, EDSS: 3.59 +/- 0.83).

23 developed permanent visual disability, 20.7% EDSS score 4 and 25.8% cognitive impairment.

24 posure as the most protective factor against EDSS-worsening events and relapses as the most important

25 versus age found for every 10 years of age, EDSS recovery is reduced by 0.15 points (P < 0.0001).

26 ure included minimisation based on sex, age, EDSS score at randomisation, and trial site.

27 had MS; 32 (42%) remained fully ambulatory (EDSS scores <=3.5), all of whom had relapsing-remitting

28 An EDSS < 3 and the absence of longitudinally extensive les

29 point was disease progression, defined as an EDSS score increase after at least 1 year of 1.0 point o

30 to sustained accumulation of disability (an EDSS score increase of at least 1 EDSS point sustained f

31 0 of these patients revealed 48 (80%) had an EDSS score of <4.0, 35 (58%) <3.0 and 16 (27%) <2.0.

32 03) were associated with a higher risk of an EDSS score of 7.0, whereas the interaction term between

33 gnancy had no effect on the time to reach an EDSS score 6.

34 erval [CI] = 7.2-14%) of patients reached an EDSS >/= 6, and 18.1% (95% CI = 13.5-22.5%) evolved from

35 cant difference in the hazard of reaching an EDSS score of 6 when either the contemporary control coh

36 low-up would be required in patients with an EDSS of 6.0 or less before drawing conclusions on this s

37 1.04-8.98; P = .04) were associated with an EDSS value of at least 2.5 at 60 months.

38 ted baseline EDSS (beta = 1.5, P < .001) and EDSS changes at follow-up (beta = 0.5, P = .003).

39 ce interval [CI] = 1.21-3.10, p = 0.006) and EDSS worsening (97.5th percentile: OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1

40 DSS(>=4.5) (n = 47, EDSS: 5.86 +/- 0.56) and EDSS(<4) (n = 52, EDSS: 3.59 +/- 0.83).

41 The correlation between brain atrophy and EDSS score was better in patients with secondary progres

42 confounders (sex, age, disease duration, and EDSS score), exposure to interferon beta was not associa

43 PASAT, z-score, MSIS-29 (psychological) and EDSS and MRI cerebral atrophy and MTR.

44 with EDSS >/= 4 or >/= 6, </= 5 relapses and EDSS <4 or <6, and time to conversion to secondary-progr

45 ing-remitting MS (RRMS), 3 (4%) had RRMS and EDSS scores >3.5, 26 (34%) had secondary progressive MS

46 dity of these scales as impairment (SNRS and EDSS) and disability (EDSS, FIM, AI and the disability d

47 ber of previous relapses within 2 years, and EDSS.

48 ases were associated with greater annualized EDSS score (r = 0.26; p < 0.001).

49 the most important risk factor for attaining EDSS worsening.

50 secutive months for patients with a baseline EDSS >/=2), and analysed efficacy outcomes for subgroups

51 For the 199 patients with a baseline EDSS score greater than or equal to 2, SRD was more like

52 algorithm stratified by country and baseline EDSS score to at least 12 months treatment of either onc

53 ment, region, disease duration, and baseline EDSS score.

54 An elevated baseline EDSS score (odds ratio [OR] per point, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.5

55 1.5, 1.0, or 0.5 (or greater) from baseline EDSS = 0, 1.0-5.0, and 5.5 or higher, respectively, asse

56 I, 2.31-19.7; P < .001), and higher baseline EDSS score (HR per point, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.06-1.39; P = .

57 MS therapy, in patients with lower baseline EDSS scores, and in patients with lower prenatalizumab r

58 sion volume independently predicted baseline EDSS (beta = 1.5, P < .001) and EDSS changes at follow-u

59 best statistical model that explains better EDSS and SDMT.

60 with disease duration >10 years was better (EDSS 1.5) compared with a population-based multiple scle

61 ions of all five scales were either bimodal (EDSS and AI) or severely skewed (SNRS, FIM and CAMBS).

62 e number of lesions at presentation and both EDSS (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and the type of disease at fo

63 in neurological disability, as determined by EDSS score (p<0.0001), neurological rating scale score (

64 SIENA, which was independently predicted by EDSS (P = 0.004).

65 n of aT2-LV at week 120 was related to CDP12-EDSS (p=0.018) and CDP24-EDSS (p=0.022) in the OLE for t

66 as related to CDP12-EDSS (p=0.018) and CDP24-EDSS (p=0.022) in the OLE for the patients who were trea

67 The central review committee, EDSS raters, laboratory personnel, and radiologists were

68 --including 26 (39%) with a 'benign' course (EDSS < or = 3)--whilst 28 (42%) had developed secondary

69 e over 10 years; for every 0.2 LTL decrease, EDSS was 0.34 higher (95% CI = 0.08-0.61, p = 0.012).

70 correlation was found between WBNAA deficit, EDSS score, and age.

71 s impairment (SNRS and EDSS) and disability (EDSS, FIM, AI and the disability domain of the CAMBS) me

72 relapsing-remitting MS and mild disability (EDSS - Expanded Disability Status Scale 1-3.5) and 16 co

73 mbulation (AI > or =7) or severe disability (EDSS >6.5) had significantly higher CSF GFAP levels than

74 ly Living (ADL) Index of general disability, EDSS, a 0-4 ataxia scale, Mini-Mental State (MMS) examin

75 om 11 (20%) had relapsing/remitting disease (EDSS > 3), 13 (24%) secondary progressive and 21 (39%) b

76 lerosis cohort matched for disease duration (EDSS 3.5; P < 0.001).

77 After correcting for age, sex, education, EDSS and depression, MSNQ significantly predicted SDMT i

78 f these data indicated that trials employing EDSS change of 1.0 as the primary outcome measure would

79 ificant spinal cord parameter for explaining EDSS score.

80 a significantly higher incidence of a first EDSS-worsening event in patients with multifocal or isol

81 owever, trials including patients with fixed EDSS of >/=6.0 will be underpowered even with large numb

82 A ratio of less than 100% for EDSS implied slower than expected progression on treatme

83 The best model for EDSS showed that reduced network density and global effi

84 (34%) had secondary progressive MS (all had EDSS scores >3.5), and MS contributed to death in 16 (20

85 145 patients in the dronabinol group had EDSS score progression (0.24 first progression events pe

86 Baseline age (beta=0.30), higher EDSS (beta=2.03), higher cord lesion number (beta=0.66)

87 t MS (standardised beta (beta)=0.97), higher EDSS (beta=0.41), higher cord lesion number (beta=0.41),

88 A higher EDSS score at baseline (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.3

89 es, those with lower baseline LTL had higher EDSS and lower brain volumes over time.

90 g patients with progressive course or higher EDSS.

91 o underwent proST had a significantly higher EDSS increase during PML (0.09 EDSS points per month; p

92 >5 cm was associated with a slightly higher EDSS at last follow-up, long-term prognosis in patients

93 e were significant correlations between: (i) EDSS and m-Ins, Cho, Cr and radial diffusivity of the la

94 mean reduction of 0.85 (95% CI 0.36-1.34) in EDSS after MMF therapy.

95 Change in EDSS at follow-up compared to baseline was significantly

96 Change in EDSS from baseline to 24 months was a strong predictor o

97 een change in T2 lesion volume and change in EDSS grade (P = .42) or AI (P = .37) was found.

98 etter clinical outcomes, and early change in EDSS score may have prognostic value, over many years, i

99 atification by decade at onset for change in EDSS versus age found for every 10 years of age, EDSS re

100 Change in EDSS was defined as the difference in EDSS between attac

101 of change in T2 lesion volume with change in EDSS was most evident in years 0-5 (r(s) = 0.69, P < 0.0

102 y Status Scale (EDSS) progression, change in EDSS, proportions of patients with EDSS >/= 4 or >/= 6,

103 me: -0.11, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.04; change in EDSS: -0.01, 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.08; relapse rate: HR =

104 icant improvement in disability (decrease in EDSS score of >/=1.0) in 41 patients (50%; 95% CI, 39% t

105 th groups had a significant deterioration in EDSS but not Barthel ADL Index scores at 1 year, but the

106 e free from progression (no deterioration in EDSS score), and 16 were free of relapses.

107 nge in EDSS was defined as the difference in EDSS between attack and follow-up.

108 en versus adults demonstrated improvement in EDSS following an attack (P = 0.006).

109 f participants with confirmed improvement in EDSS or TW25 at month 12, confirmed at month 15, versus

110 Sustained improvement in EDSS was seen in 15 (44%) of patients.

111 moderate correlation between the increase in EDSS and temporal and superior RNFL thinning.

112 Associations were seen between increase in EDSS score and decrease in cord area (r=0.31, P<0.05) an

113 Mean increase in EDSS score at month 120 and the proportions of patients

114 24 weeks with four measures (ie, increase in EDSS score, >=20% increase in time to complete the 9-Hol

115 te transitional probabilities for individual EDSS scores.

116 progression using 600 patients with initial EDSS of 4.0 per trial arm, or 400 patients with initial

117 per trial arm, or 400 patients with initial EDSS of 5.0 per arm.

118 relapsing-remitting MS, and the median (IQR) EDSS score was 2.0 (1.0-3.0).

119 median active follow-up times (first to last EDSS measurement) were as follows: for the interferon be

120 tailed characterisation of patients with low EDSS scores at long disease durations.

121 sure was independently associated with lower EDSS at 10 years (coeff = -0.86, p = 1.3 x 10(-9) ).

122 ere also independently associated with lower EDSS scores over the 10-year observation period (coeff =

123 ects in those treated earlier and with lower EDSS scores.

124 duration, and sex, for every 0.2 lower LTL, EDSS was 0.27 higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.1

125 Mean EDSS scores remained unchanged up to 5 years.

126 8% women, mean age 48.5 years [SD 8.4], mean EDSS 4.67 [SD 1.03], 87% free of gadolinium-enhancing le

127 til the tenth year after disease onset (mean EDSS score 2.3 [SD 1.8] vs 3.5 [SD 2.1]; p<0.0001), with

128 At baseline, the mean EDSS score was 2.2 (SD 1.2) in the early group and 2.1 (

129 the sixth year after disease onset, the mean EDSS score was 2.2 (SD 1.6) in the early group compared

130 During the first year, mean EDSS scores decreased (improved) from 3.38 to 2.36 in th

131 Median EDSS score changes over a 10-year period were determined

132 e to second attack was 4.8 years, and median EDSS at follow-up was 3.0.

133 was highly predictive of increases in median EDSS over 10 years (coeff = 1.14, p = 1.9 x 10(-22) ).

134 s, median disease duration = 6 years, median EDSS = 1.5 [range = 0-7], mean T/S ratio = 0.97 [standar

135 3 male; 10 female; mean age 52 years; median EDSS 6.0; mean disease duration 11 years), and 27 patien

136 8 male; 19 female; mean age 50 years; median EDSS 6; mean disease duration 22 years).

137 =0.0001) and to reach disability milestones (EDSS 4.0, 23.8 vs 15.5 years, p<0.0001; EDSS 6.0, 30.8 v

138 For every 10 years of age, odds of EDSS not improving increase by 1.33 times (P < 0.0001).

139 Predictors of EDSS change were then assessed using median quantile reg

140 The independent predictors of EDSS score in PMS were cervical spinal cord GM CSA and b

141 The independent predictors of EDSS score in RRMS were lateral funiculi FA, normalized

142 Baseline predictors of EDSS worsening were progressive-onset versus relapse-ons

143 lapses was associated with a reduced risk of EDSS score of 7.0 (aHR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71; P = .00

144 ducted in 200 patients from 4 studies and on EDSS in 158 patients from 3 studies.

145 ble for 31% of the total treatment effect on EDSS [beta = -0.037; 95% credible interval (CI) = -0.075

146 ained 69% of the overall treatment effect on EDSS, and brain atrophy, which, in turn, was responsible

147 RSS inclusion criteria and had at least one EDSS score after baseline.

148 of disease onset, gender disease duration or EDSS, but there was a strong correlation with the number

149 nd change in brain volume, relapse rates, or EDSS scores.

150 Meier estimate of progression (>/= 1.0 point EDSS) at 3 years was 27%.

151 ) and lower cord area (beta=-0.41) predicted EDSS=4.0 (C-index=0.92).

152 any of 9 patients with a pretransplantation EDSS of 6.0 or less.

153 re were 2 patients with a pretransplantation EDSS of 7.0 and 8.0 who died from complications of progr

154 of 24-week confirmed disability progression: EDSS, 51.7% vs 64.8% (difference 13.1% [95% CI 4.9-21.3]

155 on of >15 years, 200 (19.1%) had most recent EDSS score <4.0.

156 nt) on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating higher

157 s, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 and onset of secondary progressio

158 n in ROMS (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 4.0:8.1 vs. 17.1 years, p<0.001; EDSS 6.0: 9.6 vs.

159 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and 3-dimensional T1-weighted brain magnetic reson

160 using the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and motor components of the MS functional composit

161 using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC)

162 clinical [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Measur

163 red on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite.

164 outcomes (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and utility) was set up, in conjunction with a ris

165 iated with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessments (beta = 1.105, p < 0.001) and presence

166 ing serial Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessments, from all 87 patients treated with ale

167 e (ARR) or Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) before and after treatment.

168 ned by the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) did not increase in disability by 1.0 or more step

169 e absolute expanded disability status scale (EDSS) grade (P = .32) or the absolute ambulation index (

170 ncrease in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) of 1.5, 1.0, or 0.5 (or greater) from baseline EDS

171 s, time to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression, change in EDSS, proportions of patien

172 dictors of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score (R(2) = 0.86).

173 r younger, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score 6.5 or lower, and no more than 10 years sinc

174 WBNAA and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and Mann-Whitney analyses to test for differ

175 ed both in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score and utility.

176 ine of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score at 60 months after the diagnosis, overall su

177 iated with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score change (normalised beta (B)=-0.12 (-0.23 to

178 trophy and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score in patients with secondary progressive MS (r

179 sustained Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score increase)) continued original treatment (thr

180 rs, had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 0-5.0, and had either one or more relapse

181 , baseline expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score of 0.0-5.0, and either at least one relapse

182 nge in the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 1.0 or greater (score range, 0-10).

183 who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3.0-6.5 were eligible for enrolment.

184 ility), an expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score of 3.5-6.5, a timed 25-foot walk (TW25) of l

185 who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4.0-6.5.

186 ys, and an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 5.5 points or less.

187 o reach an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 6 (mean 22.9 years) and patients having c

188 who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 7.5 or lower, and had a history of at lea

189 d the mean expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score of the alemtuzumab cohort improved compared

190 Mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 3.5.

191 s, with an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score within 30 days after onset of an attack, and

192 , baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, and age group.

193 change in expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score, and no new MRI lesions (no T1 gadolinium-en

194 cording to expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score, centre, and disease type.

195 d on their expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score: EDSS(>=4.5) (n = 47, EDSS: 5.86 +/- 0.56) a

196 confirmed Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores 4, 6 and 7 and annualised relapse rate in t

197 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were available in 107 participants, of whom

198 , although expanded disability status scale (EDSS) scores were not significantly different (5.2 [1.0-

199 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores were unchanged, except for improved bowel a

200 ns (NT2L), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and John Cunningham virus (JCV) serostatus

201 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, disease duration, treatments, prior optic

202 vided into Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) subgroups: Low 0.0-3.0, Medium 3.5-6.0, High 6.5-9

203 n baseline expanded disability status scale (EDSS) was 7.0 (range, 5.0-8.0).

204 red by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was stable or improved compared to baseline in 41%

205 The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was used to assess neurologic disability.

206 in-PAD and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) were explored.

207 ing severe Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) worsening (worst quartile of change, >/=4.5 EDSS p

208 defined as Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) worsening that was confirmed after 6 or more month

209 isability (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) and information processing speed (Symbol Digit Mo

210 aseline in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), 25' Timed-Walk Test, or Nine-Hole Peg Test to ass

211 sed on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), 9-hole peg test (HPT) and timed 25-foot walk test

212 he Kurtzke expanded disability status scale (EDSS), and five patients (24%) relapsed but achieved rem

213 Changes in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and in 3 month (3M) and 6 month (6M) confirmed di

214 n test and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), and serum total cholesterol levels were measured.

215 f attacks, expanded disability status scale (EDSS), MS severity score (MSSS)) and radiological variab

216 sed on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), not encompassing the wider impact of disease.

217 abilities [Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), score 3.5-8], with a median disease duration of 1

218 rosis, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the Scripps Neurological Rating Scale (SNRS), the

219 d with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the timed 25-foot walk test (TWT), and the nine-h

220 lated with Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS), time since CIS diagnosis, time since MS diagnosis

221 of a first Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)-worsening event (HR, 95% CI = 0.59, 0.42-0.83; 0.7

222 using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

223 ned by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

224 red by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

225 linked to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

226 Kurtzke's expanded disability status scale (EDSS).

227 he Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

228 ore on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS).

229 ar, and an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS; score range, 0-10 [10 = worst neurologic disabilit

230 al scores (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] and MS multiple sclerosis Functional Composite [ M

231 sions, and Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] change) were identified.

232 sclerosis (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of 0.0-5.5) were included.

233 d with the Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score; P = .046, corrected) and lesion load at T2-

234 data (the expanded disability status scale [EDSS] time series) obtained from a retrospective longitu

235 ion to MS, Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes.

236 isability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]).

237 y means of Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]).

238 the Expanded Disability Status Scale score (EDSS) and the 9-hole PEG test (9HPT).

239 patients [Extended Disability Status Score (EDSS) 0-7.5] with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

240 areas and Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS) were determined.

241 d with the Expanded Disability Status Score (EDSS; an ordinal scale of 0-10, with higher scores indic

242 panded disability status scale (EDSS) score: EDSS(>=4.5) (n = 47, EDSS: 5.86 +/- 0.56) and EDSS(<4) (

243 h high pretransplantation disability scores (EDSS > 6.0), progressive neurologic disability as define

244 he median Expanded Disability Status Scores (EDSS) was 6 (2-7) and patients had failed a median of 4

245 age, sex, expanded disability system scores (EDSS) and disease duration.

246 persistent disease activity predicted severe EDSS worsening: gadolinium-enhancing lesions (odds ratio

247 ACES were associated with significant EDSS score increases, lower than those found for RAM.

248 Both models showed slower EDSS progression than predicted for untreated controls (

249 s to test for differences between subgroups' EDSS scores versus previously published WBNAA values for

250 erved outcome rates for reaching a sustained EDSS score of 6 were 10.8%, 5.3%, and 23.1% in the 3 coh

251 ced a significant delay in time to sustained EDSS progression (p = 0.02).

252 The EDSS and MSSS were not affected by any type of allergy.

253 The SNRS and the EDSS were reliable and valid measures of impairment and

254 ndependent of serum cholesterol) on both the EDSS, which explained 69% of the overall treatment effec

255 S were sensitive to clinical change, but the EDSS and the SNRS were unresponsive.

256 Except for the EDSS model, all associations were stronger when the with

257 Scores from the EDSS improved significantly from a pretransplant median

258 sing global disability (as assessed from the EDSS score).

259 in the datasets was reduced by grouping the EDSS time series using an unsupervised clustering analys

260 efined by at least a 1-point increase in the EDSS has occurred and was manifested as gradual neurolog

261 ial group on the change from baseline in the EDSS score.

262 servation predicted subsequent change in the EDSS, suggesting that the MSFC is more sensitive to chan

263 = .03) were associated with worsening of the EDSS score at 60 months.

264 isability (SRD; a >/=1 point decrease on the EDSS sustained for 6 consecutive months for patients wit

265 After RTX, the EDSS score decreased significantly (MD: -0.84, 95% CI -1

266 he MSFC is more sensitive to change than the EDSS.

267 M-Ins was independently associated with the EDSS, while Cr, tNAA and connectivity of the posterior t

268 ng physical disability, as measured with the EDSS.

269 d as clinically stable/worsened according to EDSS changes.

270 nt and classified as having BMS according to EDSS score <3, no significant fatigue, mood disturbance,

271 n and spinal GM independently contributed to EDSS.

272 There was a 4-year (CI 2.7 to 5.3) delay to EDSS 6.0.

273 s who did the OCT at baseline were masked to EDSS results and the researchers assessing disability wi

274 days after onset of an attack, and follow-up EDSS 6 months after attack.

275 after a median follow-up of two years, using EDSS score evaluation.

276 m-enhancing lesion number, T2 lesion volume, EDSS score, number of previous relapses, and highly acti

277 Primary outcomes were EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progres

278 res), as was time to requiring a wheelchair (EDSS >=7).

279 ients with a three-year follow-up, for which EDSS data and brain volume time series were available.

280 h confirmed disability progression, and with EDSS score >=4 during follow-up, were similar in patient

281 , p<0.01) were independently associated with EDSS (R(2)=0.77); spinal cord GM RD was also independent

282 f the subset, LTL change was associated with EDSS change over 10 years; for every 0.2 LTL decrease, E

283 S versus HCs, and showed an association with EDSS and disease duration.

284 assessed the association of LTL change with EDSS change with mixed effects models.

285 tions of MS status and made comparisons with EDSS-based definitions.

286 d whole cord areas inversely correlated with EDSS (rho: -0.60, -0.32, -0.42, respectively; all p </=

287 (P=.003, Wilcoxon test) and correlated with EDSS score (Spearman rho=0.19, P=.04) and brain atrophy

288 UCCA was inversely correlated with EDSS score, TWT, and nine-hole peg test findings (rho </

289 Cortical lesion volume correlated with EDSS scores more robustly than did WM lesion volume (rho

290 0.44, P < .01) were strongly correlated with EDSS.

291 nd the researchers assessing disability with EDSS were masked to OCT results.

292 significantly increased in participants with EDSS scores of 5.0 or more vs those with scores less tha

293 change in EDSS, proportions of patients with EDSS >/= 4 or >/= 6, </= 5 relapses and EDSS <4 or <6, a

294 ated with lower proportions of patients with EDSS progression and conversion to SPMS, and longer time

295 nd 21 (39%) benign (relapsing/remitting with EDSS < or = 3) disease.

296 on) on QS maps correlated significantly with EDSS (R = 0.46, P = .02).

297 Both effects correlated strongly with EDSS.

298 d than fingolimod-treated patients had worse EDSS scores at study end (20.6% vs 10.5%, p=0.043).

299 me-points correlated moderately with 20-year EDSS (r(s) values 0.48 to 0.67; P < 0.001) and MSFC z-sc

300 secondary progressive MS, mean age 37 years, EDSS 5.7, 28% with recent disability progression, ARR 0.