B Healy1, P Valsasina, M Filippi, R Bakshi. 1. Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Partners MS Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sample size requirements for a neuroprotection trial with change in cerebral gray matter volume (GMV), white matter volume (WMV) or whole brain parenchymal volume (BPV) as outcome measures in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: Two datasets with longitudinal MRI measures of untreated patients with RRMS (n = 116 and n = 26) and one dataset of treated patients with RRMS (n = 109) were investigated. In each dataset, normalised GMV, normalised WMV and normalised BPV were analysed using a random intercepts and slopes model to estimate the variance components and per cent change. The required sample size to observe a 33%, 50% and 90% reduction in the per cent change was calculated for each dataset using both a constant per cent change for each measurement and the estimated per cent change for each dataset. RESULTS: The per cent change was greatest in GMV but all variance components were smallest in BPV. Using the estimated per cent change, the sample size required in the untreated cohorts was similar for GMV and BPV, and both were lower than WMV. In the treated cohort, the sample size for GMV was the smallest of all measures. Including additional scans reduced the sample size but increasing the length of the trial and clustering scans led to greater reductions. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebral GMV may be a viable outcome measure for clinical trials investigating neuroprotection in RRMS patients, especially considering that the treatment effect may be larger on GMV compared with BPV. However, GMV was somewhat limited by increased variability versus BPV.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sample size requirements for a neuroprotection trial with change in cerebral gray matter volume (GMV), white matter volume (WMV) or whole brain parenchymal volume (BPV) as outcome measures in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). METHODS: Two datasets with longitudinal MRI measures of untreated patients with RRMS (n = 116 and n = 26) and one dataset of treated patients with RRMS (n = 109) were investigated. In each dataset, normalised GMV, normalised WMV and normalised BPV were analysed using a random intercepts and slopes model to estimate the variance components and per cent change. The required sample size to observe a 33%, 50% and 90% reduction in the per cent change was calculated for each dataset using both a constant per cent change for each measurement and the estimated per cent change for each dataset. RESULTS: The per cent change was greatest in GMV but all variance components were smallest in BPV. Using the estimated per cent change, the sample size required in the untreated cohorts was similar for GMV and BPV, and both were lower than WMV. In the treated cohort, the sample size for GMV was the smallest of all measures. Including additional scans reduced the sample size but increasing the length of the trial and clustering scans led to greater reductions. CONCLUSIONS: Cerebral GMV may be a viable outcome measure for clinical trials investigating neuroprotection in RRMS patients, especially considering that the treatment effect may be larger on GMV compared with BPV. However, GMV was somewhat limited by increased variability versus BPV.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Yongyue Zhang; Mark Jenkinson; Jacqueline Chen; P M Matthews; Antonio Federico; Nicola De Stefano Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Marco Rovaris; Matilde Inglese; Frederik Barkhof; Nicola De Stefano; Steve Smith; Giancarlo Comi Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Oct 23-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M P Amato; M L Bartolozzi; V Zipoli; E Portaccio; M Mortilla; L Guidi; G Siracusa; S Sorbi; A Federico; N De Stefano Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D T Chard; C M Griffin; W Rashid; G R Davies; D R Altmann; R Kapoor; G J Barker; A J Thompson; D H Miller Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Catherine M Dalton; Declan T Chard; Gerard R Davies; Katherine A Miszkiel; Dan R Altmann; Kryshani Fernando; Gordon T Plant; Alan J Thompson; David H Miller Journal: Brain Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Daniel S Reich; Richard White; Irene Cm Cortese; Luisa Vuolo; Colin D Shea; Tassie L Collins; John Petkau Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2015-02-06 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Lauren S Talman; Esther R Bisker; David J Sackel; David A Long; Kristin M Galetta; John N Ratchford; Deacon J Lile; Sheena K Farrell; Michael J Loguidice; Gina Remington; Amy Conger; Teresa C Frohman; Dina A Jacobs; Clyde E Markowitz; Gary R Cutter; Gui-Shuang Ying; Yang Dai; Maureen G Maguire; Steven L Galetta; Elliot M Frohman; Peter A Calabresi; Laura J Balcer Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Florian Kurth; Eileen Luders; Nancy L Sicotte; Christian Gaser; Barbara S Giesser; Ronald S Swerdloff; Michael J Montag; Rhonda R Voskuhl; Allan Mackenzie-Graham Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Kunio Nakamura; Nicolas Guizard; Vladimir S Fonov; Sridar Narayanan; D Louis Collins; Douglas L Arnold Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Rohit Bakshi; Mohit Neema; Shahamat Tauhid; Brian C Healy; Bonnie I Glanz; Gloria Kim; Jennifer Miller; Julia L Berkowitz; Riley Bove; Maria K Houtchens; Christopher Severson; James M Stankiewicz; Lynn Stazzone; Tanuja Chitnis; Charles R G Guttmann; Howard L Weiner; Antonia Ceccarelli Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 1.837