EDSS variability before randomization may limit treatment discovery in primary progressive MS
Genentech Inc., USA. Multiple Sclerosis
(Impact Factor: 4.82).
10/2012; 19(6). DOI: 10.1177/1352458512459685
Baseline Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is usually based on a single measurement. Here we evaluated whether using a baseline EDSS derived from two pre-treatment measurements improves the detection of progression events and the ability to demonstrate a therapeutic effect in delaying MS disability progression.
Real data from OLYMPUS, a phase II/III randomized, placebo-controlled trial of rituximab in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), as well as simulated data were analyzed. Several definitions of baseline EDSS were used to capture sustained disability progression (SDP) events. Variations in the EDSS were estimated by linear mixed-effect models.
Selecting the higher of two baseline EDSS scores lowered the number of SDP events in both treatment groups, so decreasing sensitivity, and reduced the number of false SDP events, so increasing specificity. Conversely, selecting the lower of two baseline scores increased sensitivity but decreased specificity. Increased power (~7% based on the simulation study) was observed when the average of screening and Week 0 EDSS scores was used for baseline.
Baseline EDSS derived from two pre-treatment EDSS measurements may enhance the ability of detecting a therapeutic effect in slowing disability progression in PPMS. This strategy could be implemented in future clinical trials of patients with MS.
Available from: Raed Alroughani
- "In addition, the EDSS changes little over time in most patients, indicating low sensitivity for detecting treatmentrelated changes in disability during clinical trials (Rabadi and Vincent, 2013; Zhang et al., 2013), although administering two EDSS tests before treatment has been shown to improve the ability of the EDSS to detect such changes (Zhang et al., 2013). Substantial inter-operator variability in EDSS measurements has also been proposed as an important limitation of this test, with one group suggesting that a change in EDSS score of at least 1 unit (2 scale steps) is required to signify a reliable measurement of change in disability status (Noseworthy et al., 1990). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: For decades, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has been the principal measure of disability in clinical trials in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in clinical practice. However, this test is dominated by effects on ambulation. Composite endpoints may provide a more sensitive measure of MS-related disability through the measurement of additional neurological functions. The MS Functional Composite (MSFC) includes a walking test (25-ft walk) plus tests of upper extremity dexterity (9-hole peg test) and cognitive function (Paced Auditory serial Addition test [PASAT]). Replacing PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modality test, a more sensitive test preferred by patients, may improve the clinical utility of the MSFC. In addition, disease-specific measures of QoL may be used alongside the MSFC (which does not include measurement of QoL). Clinical data suggest that disease-modifying therapies may delay or prevent relapse, and better composite measures will be valuable in the assessment of disease activity-free status in people with MS.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders 03/2015; 4(3). DOI:10.1016/j.msard.2015.03.004 · 0.88 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Fingolimod has shown reductions in clinical and MRI disease activity in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We further assessed the efficacy and safety of fingolimod in such patients.
We did this placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 study predominantly in the USA (101 of 117 centres). Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly allocated eligible patients-those aged 18-55 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis-to receive fingolimod 0·5 mg, fingolimod 1·25 mg, or placebo orally once daily (1:1:1; stratified by study centre). On Nov 12, 2009, all patients assigned to fingolimod 1·25 mg were switched to the 0·5 mg dose in a blinded manner after a review of data from other phase 3 trials and recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board, but were analysed as being in the 1·25 mg group in the primary outcome analysis. Our primary endpoint was annualised relapse rate at month 24, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints included percentage brain volume change (PBVC) from baseline and time-to-disability-progression confirmed at 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrilals.gov, number NCT00355134.
Between June 30, 2006, and March 4, 2009, we enrolled and randomly allocated 1083 patients: 370 to fingolimod 1·25 mg, 358 to fingolimod 0·5 mg, and 355 to placebo. Mean annualised relapse rate was 0·40 (95% CI 0·34-0·48) in patients given placebo and 0·21 (0·17-0·25) in patients given fingolimod 0·5 mg: rate ratio 0·52 (95% CI 0·40-0·66; p<0·0001), corresponding to a reduction of 48% with fingolimod 0·5 mg versus placebo. Mean PBVC was -0·86 (SD 1·22) for fingolimod 0·5 mg versus -1·28 (1·50) for placebo (treatment difference -0·41, 95% CI -0·62 to -0·20; p=0·0002). We recorded no statistically significant between-group difference in confirmed disability progression (hazard rate 0·83 with fingolimod 0·5 mg vs placebo; 95% CI 0·61-1·12; p=0·227). Fingolimod 0·5 mg caused more of the following adverse events versus placebo: lymphopenia (27 [8%] patients vs 0 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase (29 [8%] vs six [2%]), herpes zoster infection (nine [3%] vs three [1%]), hypertension (32 [9%] vs 11 [3%]), first-dose bradycardia (five [1%] vs one [<0·5%]), and first-degree atrioventricular block (17 [5%] vs seven [2%]). 53 (15%) of 358 patients given fingolimod 0·5 mg and 45 (13%) of 355 patients given placebo had serious adverse events over 24 months, which included basal-cell carcinoma (ten [3%] patients vs two [1%] patients), macular oedema (three [1%] vs two [1%]), infections (11 [3%] vs four [1%]), and neoplasms (13 [4%] vs eight [2%]).
Our findings expand knowledge of the safety profile of fingolimod and strengthen evidence for its beneficial effects on relapse rates in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We saw no effect of fingolimod on disability progression. Our findings substantiate the beneficial profile of fingolimod as a disease-modifying agent in the management of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
Novartis Pharma AG.
The Lancet Neurology 03/2014; 13(6). DOI:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70049-3 · 21.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has low sensitivity and reliability for detecting sustained disability progression (SDP) in multiple sclerosis (MS) trials.
This study evaluated composite disability end points as alternatives to EDSS alone.
SDP rates were determined using 96-week data from the Olympus trial (rituximab in patients with primary progressive MS). SDP was analyzed using composite disability end points: SDP in EDSS, timed 25-foot walk test (T25FWT), or 9-hole peg test (9HPT) (composite A); SDP in T25FWT or 9HPT (composite B); SDP in EDSS and (T25FWT or 9HPT) (composite C); and SDP in any two (EDSS, T25FWT, and 9HPT) (composite D).
Overall agreements between EDSS and other disability measures in defining SDP were 66%-73%. Composite A showed similar treatment effect estimate versus EDSS alone with much higher SDP rates. Composite B, C, and D all showed larger treatment effect estimate with different or similar SDP rates versus EDSS alone. Using composite A (24-week confirmation only), B, C, or D could reduce sample sizes needed for MS trials.
Composite end points including multiple accepted disability measures could be superior to EDSS alone in analyzing disability progression and should be considered in future MS trials.
Multiple Sclerosis 03/2014; 20(11). DOI:10.1177/1352458514527180 · 4.82 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.