J Zhang1, E Waubant2, G Cutter3, Js Wolinsky4, D Leppert5. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Genentech Inc, USA zhang.jiameng@gene.com. 2. Department of Neuroscience, UCSF Multiple Sclerosis Center, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, USA. 5. Pharmaceuticals Division - PDN, F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has low sensitivity and reliability for detecting sustained disability progression (SDP) in multiple sclerosis (MS) trials. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated composite disability end points as alternatives to EDSS alone. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
BACKGROUND: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has low sensitivity and reliability for detecting sustained disability progression (SDP) in multiple sclerosis (MS) trials. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated composite disability end points as alternatives to EDSS alone. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Carmen Tur; Marcello Moccia; Frederik Barkhof; Jeremy Chataway; Jaume Sastre-Garriga; Alan J Thompson; Olga Ciccarelli Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Ricardo N Alonso; Maria B Eizaguirre; Leila Cohen; Cecilia Quarracino; Berenice Silva; Maria C Pita; Cecilia Yastremiz; Sandra Vanotti; Orlando Garcea Journal: Int J MS Care Date: 2020-05-15
Authors: T Ziemssen; S Rauer; C Stadelmann; T Henze; J Koehler; I-K Penner; M Lang; D Poehlau; M Baier-Ebert; H Schieb; S Meuth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marcus W Koch; Gary R Cutter; Gavin Giovannoni; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Jerry S Wolinsky; Mat D Davis; Joshua R Steinerman; Volker Knappertz Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2017-05-10
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Helmut Butzkueven; Heinz Wiendl; Timothy Spelman; Fabio Pellegrini; Yi Chen; Qunming Dong; Harold Koendgen; Shibeshih Belachew; Maria Trojano Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Massimo Filippi; Maria Pia Amato; Diego Centonze; Paolo Gallo; Claudio Gasperini; Matilde Inglese; Francesco Patti; Carlo Pozzilli; Paolo Preziosa; Maria Trojano Journal: J Neurol Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 6.682
Authors: Ludwig Kappos; Jerry S Wolinsky; Gavin Giovannoni; Douglas L Arnold; Qing Wang; Corrado Bernasconi; Fabian Model; Harold Koendgen; Marianna Manfrini; Shibeshih Belachew; Stephen L Hauser Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302