Prevalence and epidemiology of stroke in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological data are sparse regarding the risk of stroke in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the following: (1) the pooled prevalence of all-cause stroke, acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) in MS patients; (2) the relative risk for all-cause stroke, AIS and ICH in MS patients compared to the general population; (3) associations between patient characteristics and the risk for AIS and ICH in MS patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of registry-based and cohort studies. RESULTS: Thirteen observational studies comprising 146,381 MS patients were included. The pooled prevalence of all-cause stroke was 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-4.6%), with the relative risk of all-cause stroke being higher in MS patients compared to the general population (RR: 2.55; 95% CI 1.97-3.29). Subgroup analyses per stroke subtype revealed a pooled AIS prevalence of 2.1% (95% CI 0.8-4.1%) and a pooled ICH prevalence of 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-1.2%). Compared to the general population, patients with MS were found to harbour an increased risk for AIS (RR: 2.79; 95% CI 2.27-3.41) and ICH (RR: 2.31; 95% CI 1.04-5.11), respectively. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in MS patients was 11.5% (95% CI 2.9-24.7%) for dyslipidaemia, 18.2% (95% CI 5.9-35.3%) for hypertension and 5.4% (95% CI 2.1-10.2%) for diabetes. In meta-regression, age was negatively associated with AIS risk (β = - .03, p = 0.04), with a 1-year increase in age resulting in a significant 3% (95%CI 0-5) attenuation of the risk of AIS. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that MS is associated with an increased risk for ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke. Future well-designed epidemiological studies are warranted to corroborate the robustness of the present findings in the MS population.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.