BACKGROUND: The marked variability in progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) requires large numbers of patients to detect a significant effect in current clinical trial designs. OBJECTIVE: To test the utility of a lead-in period to assess rate of progression so that patients with rapidly progressive ALS can be selected for subsequent clinical trials. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: The ALS Center, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven consecutively recruited patients assessed at diagnosis and 3 months later (end of lead-in period). INTERVENTIONS: Change in ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS) score was analyzed to establish a statistically significant cutoff point to define patients with rapid (group 1) or slow (group 2) progression. Patients from both groups were reexamined 1 and 3 months after the lead-in period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in ALS-FRS score, motor unit number estimation, and neurophysiologic index, and resultant grouping of patients according to rate of progression at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Both the 80th percentile and 2 SDs above the mean of the change in ALS-FRS score identified the same patients. Twelve patients showed rapid progression (group 1) and 45 showed slow progression (group 2). One month after the lead-in period there was a significant reduction in ALS-FRS score, motor unit number estimation, and neurophysiologic index in group 1, and after 3 months all these measurements changed significantly in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This strategy of selecting patients with rapidly progressing ALS for inclusion in exploratory, short phase II clinical trials offers substantial savings in costs and time, and could accelerate the process of testing potentially useful drugs for the treatment of ALS.
BACKGROUND: The marked variability in progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) requires large numbers of patients to detect a significant effect in current clinical trial designs. OBJECTIVE: To test the utility of a lead-in period to assess rate of progression so that patients with rapidly progressive ALS can be selected for subsequent clinical trials. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: The ALS Center, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. PATIENTS: Fifty-seven consecutively recruited patients assessed at diagnosis and 3 months later (end of lead-in period). INTERVENTIONS: Change in ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS) score was analyzed to establish a statistically significant cutoff point to define patients with rapid (group 1) or slow (group 2) progression. Patients from both groups were reexamined 1 and 3 months after the lead-in period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in ALS-FRS score, motor unit number estimation, and neurophysiologic index, and resultant grouping of patients according to rate of progression at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Both the 80th percentile and 2 SDs above the mean of the change in ALS-FRS score identified the same patients. Twelve patients showed rapid progression (group 1) and 45 showed slow progression (group 2). One month after the lead-in period there was a significant reduction in ALS-FRS score, motor unit number estimation, and neurophysiologic index in group 1, and after 3 months all these measurements changed significantly in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This strategy of selecting patients with rapidly progressing ALS for inclusion in exploratory, short phase II clinical trials offers substantial savings in costs and time, and could accelerate the process of testing potentially useful drugs for the treatment of ALS.
Authors: Melissa M Haulcomb; Rena M Meadows; Whitney M Miller; Kathryn P McMillan; MeKenzie J Hilsmeyer; Xuefu Wang; Wesley T Beaulieu; Stephanie L Dickinson; Todd J Brown; Virginia M Sanders; Kathryn J Jones Journal: Neural Regen Res Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.135
Authors: Matthew C Kiernan; Steve Vucic; Kevin Talbot; Christopher J McDermott; Orla Hardiman; Jeremy M Shefner; Ammar Al-Chalabi; William Huynh; Merit Cudkowicz; Paul Talman; Leonard H Van den Berg; Thanuja Dharmadasa; Paul Wicks; Claire Reilly; Martin R Turner Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Karl Heilbron; Sahar V Mozaffari; Vladimir Vacic; Peng Yue; Wei Wang; Jingchunzi Shi; Adrian M Jubb; Steven J Pitts; Xin Wang Journal: J Pathol Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Ruben P A van Eijk; Stavros Nikolakopoulos; Kit C B Roes; Lindsay Kendall; Steve S Han; Arseniy Lavrov; Noam Epstein; Tessa Kliest; Adriaan D de Jongh; Henk-Jan Westeneng; Ammar Al-Chalabi; Philip Van Damme; Orla Hardiman; Pamela J Shaw; Christopher J McDermott; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Leonard H van den Berg Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 9.910