Prognostic factors in multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment in multiple sclerosis: an outcome study

The aim of this outcome study was to evaluate the effectiveness and prognostic factors of inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We analysed 230 consecutive inpatients with MS admitted to an MS rehabilitation ward who followed an individualized, goal-oriented, multidisciplinary rehabilitation program. Every patient was submitted to a neurological examination and evaluated by means of Kurtzke’s Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), with its functional systems (FS), Barthel Index (BI) and the Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI). We observed an effectiveness (percentage of potential improvement achieved during rehabilitation) of nearly 16% on BI and 8% on RMI, corresponding to an improvement in 124 patients (54%) on BI and 113 patients (49%) on RMI. Basal EDSS (β= -0.32, p<0.001), cognitive status (β= -0.15, p<0.05) and disease duration (β= -0.13, p<0.05) were negatively associated with effectiveness of treatment on BI (adjusted R2=0.176), whereas effectiveness on RMI was correlated only with the EDSS score (β=-0.34, p<0.001, adjusted R2=0.113). In the logistic regression analysis, the absence of severe sphincteric disturbances was correlated with the probability of improvement on BI that was nearly twice as high (OR=2.25, 95% CI 1.24-4.08) as that of other patients. Moreover, patients without severe cognitive deficits showed a similar probability (OR-2.37, 95% CI 1.05-5.33) of improvement on RMI. The results of this study provide further evidence that intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation in MS is effective in the majority of MS patients and that early treatment may favour functional recovery.

[1]  J. Kurtzke Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis , 1983, Neurology.

[2]  R G Newcombe,et al.  Controlled randomised crossover trial of the effects of physiotherapy on mobility in chronic multiple sclerosis , 2001, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[3]  G. Aimard,et al.  Course and prognosis of multiple sclerosis assessed by the computerized data processing of 349 patients. , 1980, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[4]  L. Scheinberg,et al.  Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation: Inpatient vs. Outpatient , 1988, Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses.

[5]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[6]  Rasch analysis of the Rivermead Mobility Index: a study using mobility measures of first-stroke inpatients. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[7]  D. Silberberg,et al.  New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines for research protocols , 1983, Annals of neurology.

[8]  E. Troisi,et al.  One-Year Follow-Up in Stroke Patients Discharged from Rehabilitation Hospital , 2000, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[9]  A. Compston,et al.  Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis , 2001, Annals of neurology.

[10]  A. Thompson The effectiveness of neurological rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. , 2000, Journal of rehabilitation research and development.

[11]  A J Thompson,et al.  Diagnostic criteria for primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A position paper , 2000, Annals of neurology.

[12]  D. Wade,et al.  The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. , 1991, International disability studies.

[13]  C. K. Ko Effectiveness of rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis , 1999 .

[14]  A. Thompson,et al.  Prospective study of neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis. , 1997, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[15]  A. Thompson,et al.  Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis , 1999, Neurology.

[16]  B Cooper,et al.  Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. , 1990, Stroke.

[17]  L. Desouza,et al.  Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patients. , 2000, Neurology.

[18]  J. A. Freeman,et al.  Improving mobility and functional independence in persons with multiple sclerosis , 2001, Journal of Neurology.

[19]  J. Kesselring Neurorehabilitation in multiple sclerosis—what is the evidence-base? , 2004, Journal of Neurology.

[20]  M. Stineman,et al.  Multiple sclerosis and rehabilitation outcome. , 1987, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[21]  E. Troisi,et al.  Mobility status after inpatient stroke rehabilitation: 1-year follow-up and prognostic factors. , 2001, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[22]  L Mendozzi,et al.  Physical rehabilitation has a positive effect on disability in multiple sclerosis patients , 1999, Neurology.

[23]  A J Thompson,et al.  The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis , 1997, Annals of neurology.

[24]  A. Eagger Rehabilitation , 1960 .

[25]  A J Thompson,et al.  Multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study of selected variables affecting rehabilitation outcome , 1999, Multiple sclerosis.

[26]  M. Amato,et al.  A prospective study on the prognosis of multiple sclerosis , 2000, Neurological Sciences.

[27]  Mahoney Fi,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. , 1965 .