| |
Patient group (n)
|
sGFAP
|
sNfL
|
|---|
|
ηρ2 for interaction, p
|
Standardized effect size
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
ηρ2 for interaction, p
|
Standardized effect size
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
|---|
|
EDSSa
|
AQP4-IgG+ (33)
|
0.10, p = 0.04
|
1.30
|
1.78 (0.52–3.04)
|
0.007
|
0.06, p = 0.11
|
1.09
|
1.58 (− 0.58–3.75)
|
0.15
|
|
MOG-IgG+ (16)
|
− 0.48
|
− 0.52 (− 2.26–1.30)
|
0.59
|
− 0.29
|
− 0.43 (− 2.55–1.70)
|
0.69
|
|
MSFCa
|
AQP4-IgG+ (25)
|
0.14, p = 0.03
|
− 1.28
|
− 0.73 (− 1.30 to − 0.16)
|
0.01
|
0.05, p = 0.20
|
− 1.75
|
− 1.05 (− 2.13−0.03)
|
0.06
|
|
MOG-IgG+ (12)
|
0.76
|
0.43 (− 0.46–1.32)
|
0.33
|
− 0.37
|
− 0.22 (− 1.26–0.82)
|
0.67
|
|
9-HPTa
|
AQP4-IgG+ (32)
|
0.11, p = 0.04
|
− 1.03
|
− 0.007 (− 0.013 to − 0.001)
|
0.03
|
< 0.01, p = 0.70
|
− 0.82
|
− 0.006 (− 0.017–0.005)
|
0.28
|
|
MOG-IgG+ (14)
|
0.65
|
0.004 (− 0.004–0.013)
|
0.32
|
− 0.47
|
− 0.003 (− 0.015–0.008)
|
0.56
|
|
PASATa
|
AQP4-IgG+ (27)
|
0.05, p = 0.19
|
− 1.00
|
− 12.7 (− 25.1 to − 0.3)
|
0.045
|
0.13, p = 0.03
|
− 1.86
|
− 23.0 (− 43.7 to − 2.4)
|
0.03
|
|
MOG-IgG+ (13)
|
0.21
|
2.7 (− 17.0–22.4)
|
0.78
|
0.44
|
5.5 (− 15.9–26.9)
|
0.61
|
|
T25-FWb
|
AQP4-IgG+ (30)
|
0.01, p = 0.61
|
0.19
|
0.027 (− 0.105–0.158)
|
0.69
|
0.01, p = 0.54
|
0.31
|
0.043 (− 0.179–0.265)
|
0.70
|
|
MOG-IgG+ (14)
|
− 0.21
|
− 0.029 (− 0.212–0.154)
|
0.75
|
0.89
|
0.122 (− 0.099–0.343)
|
0.27
|
- aLinear model using log-transformed sGFAP or sNfL values, including age as well as the log-transformed interval since the last attack as covariates. Furthermore, an interaction term of baseline sGFAP or sNFL (log-transformed) and group was included to assess the statistical significance of inter group differences
- bLinear model using log-transformed sGFAP or sNfL and log-transformed T25-FW values, including age as well as the log-transformed interval since the last attack as covariates. Furthermore, an interaction term of baseline sGFAP or sNFL (log-transformed) and group was included to assess the statistical significance of inter group differences
- Note that a higher EDSS score indicates a worse functional status, whereas a higher MSFC score indicates a better functional status. The EDSS [23] is the most common score to rate global neurological dysfunction secondary to MS and NMOSD. The MSFC [24] is a more complex, multidimensional scoring system for neurological impairment in MS and NMOSD, which consists of three components. These components, which may each be used individually as well, are the 9-HPT, PASAT, and T25-FW. The 9-HPT assesses upper extremity function and dexterity. PASAT, in rating the processing speed of auditory input and calculation ability, quantifies cognitive impairment. T25-FW addresses lower extremity function based on walking speed
- 9-HPT 9-hole peg test, AQP4-IgG aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G, β regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, ηρ2 partial eta-squared, EDSS expanded disability status scale, MOG-IgG myelin oligodendrocyte protein immunoglobulin G, MSFC multiple sclerosis functional composite, n number, NMOSD neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, PASAT paced auditory serial addition test, sGFAP serum glial fibrillary acidic protein, sNfL serum neurofilament light chain protein, T25-FW timed 25-foot walk
