Objective To undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that investigated prognostic factors and survival in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA).
Methods Publications of at least 10 patients with a likely or confirmed diagnosis of PSP or MSA were eligible for inclusion. Methodological quality was rated using a modified version of the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. For frequently examined prognostic factors, HRs derived by univariate and multivariate analysis were pooled in separate subgroups; other results were synthesised narratively and HRs could not be reported here.
Results Thirty-seven studies presenting findings on 6193 patients (1911 PSP, 4282 MSA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We identified the following variables as unfavourable predictors of survival. In PSP, PSP-Richardson’s phenotype (univariate HR 2.53; 95% CI 1.69 to 3.78), early dysphagia and early cognitive symptoms. In MSA, severe dysautonomia and early development of combined autonomic and motor features but not MSA phenotype (multivariate HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.80).
In PSP and MSA, survival was predicted by early falls (multivariate HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.94 to 2.77), the Neuroprotection and Natural History in Parkinson Plus Syndromes Parkinson Plus Score and the Clinical Global Impression Disease Severity Score but not sex (multivariate HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.28). There was conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic effect of age at onset and stridor.
Conclusion Several clinical variables were strongly associated with shorter survival in PSP and MSA. Results on most prognostic factors were consistent across methodologically diverse studies; however, the lack of commonality of prognostic factors investigated is a significant limitation.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributor SAG performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. RAS reviewed a random sample of five papers. All authors participated in study design, revised the protocol, contributed to interpretation of the results, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, read and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.