Daniel S Reich1, Richard White2, Irene Cm Cortese3, Luisa Vuolo3, Colin D Shea3, Tassie L Collins4, John Petkau2. 1. Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, USA reichds@ninds.nih.gov. 2. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Canada. 3. Division of Neuroimmunology and Neurovirology, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, USA. 4. Myelin Repair Foundation, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion activity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can test immunomodulatory therapies in proof-of-concept trials. Comparably powerful endpoints to assess tissue protection or repair are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to report sample-size calculations for assessment of new lesion recovery. METHODS: In two sets of six active MS cases, new lesions were observed by monthly MRI for approximately 12 months. Averages and quartiles of normalized (proton density/T1/T2 weighted) and quantitative (T1/T2 and mean diffusivity maps for dataset 1, T2 and magnetization transfer ratio maps for dataset 2) measures were used to compare the lesion area before lesion appearance to afterward. A linear mixed-effects model incorporating lesion- and participant-specific random effects estimated average levels and variance components for sample-size calculations. RESULTS: In both datasets, greatest statistical sensitivity was observed for the 25th percentile of normalized proton density-weighted signal. At 3T, using new lesions ⩾15 mm(3), as few as nine participants/arm may be required for a six-month placebo-controlled add-on trial postulating a therapeutic effect size of 20% and statistical power of 90%. CONCLUSION: Lesion recovery is a powerful outcome measure for proof-of-concept clinical trials of tissue protection and repair in MS. The trial design requires active cases and is therefore best implemented near disease onset.
BACKGROUND: New multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion activity on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can test immunomodulatory therapies in proof-of-concept trials. Comparably powerful endpoints to assess tissue protection or repair are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to report sample-size calculations for assessment of new lesion recovery. METHODS: In two sets of six active MS cases, new lesions were observed by monthly MRI for approximately 12 months. Averages and quartiles of normalized (proton density/T1/T2 weighted) and quantitative (T1/T2 and mean diffusivity maps for dataset 1, T2 and magnetization transfer ratio maps for dataset 2) measures were used to compare the lesion area before lesion appearance to afterward. A linear mixed-effects model incorporating lesion- and participant-specific random effects estimated average levels and variance components for sample-size calculations. RESULTS: In both datasets, greatest statistical sensitivity was observed for the 25th percentile of normalized proton density-weighted signal. At 3T, using new lesions ⩾15 mm(3), as few as nine participants/arm may be required for a six-month placebo-controlled add-on trial postulating a therapeutic effect size of 20% and statistical power of 90%. CONCLUSION: Lesion recovery is a powerful outcome measure for proof-of-concept clinical trials of tissue protection and repair in MS. The trial design requires active cases and is therefore best implemented near disease onset.
Authors: Russell T Shinohara; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Brian S Caffo; María Inés Gaitán; Daniel S Reich Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: J H Simon; D Li; A Traboulsee; P K Coyle; D L Arnold; F Barkhof; J A Frank; R Grossman; D W Paty; E W Radue; J S Wolinsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: D R Altmann; B Jasperse; F Barkhof; K Beckmann; M Filippi; L D Kappos; P Molyneux; C H Polman; C Pozzilli; A J Thompson; K Wagner; T A Yousry; D H Miller Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Irene M Vavasour; Cornelia Laule; David K B Li; Anthony L Traboulsee; Alex L MacKay Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J H van Waesberghe; M A van Walderveen; J A Castelijns; P Scheltens; G J Lycklama à Nijeholt; C H Polman; F Barkhof Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: G J Nijeholt; E Bergers; W Kamphorst; J Bot; K Nicolay; J A Castelijns; J H van Waesberghe; R Ravid; C H Polman; F Barkhof Journal: Brain Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Peter Patrikios; Christine Stadelmann; Alexandra Kutzelnigg; Helmut Rauschka; Manfred Schmidbauer; Henning Laursen; Per Soelberg Sorensen; Wolfgang Brück; Claudia Lucchinetti; Hans Lassmann Journal: Brain Date: 2006-08-18 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Martina Absinta; Pascal Sati; Matthew Schindler; Emily C Leibovitch; Joan Ohayon; Tianxia Wu; Alessandro Meani; Massimo Filippi; Steven Jacobson; Irene C M Cortese; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Menghan Hu; Matthew K Schindler; Blake E Dewey; Daniel S Reich; Russell T Shinohara; Ani Eloyan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Jean-Philippe Fortin; Elizabeth M Sweeney; John Muschelli; Ciprian M Crainiceanu; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Nathanael J Lee; Seung-Kwon Ha; Pascal Sati; Martina Absinta; Nicholas J Luciano; Jennifer A Lefeuvre; Matthew K Schindler; Emily C Leibovitch; Jae Kyu Ryu; Mark A Petersen; Afonso C Silva; Steven Jacobson; Katerina Akassoglou; Daniel S Reich Journal: Brain Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Gina-Maria Pomann; Ana-Maria Staicu; Edgar J Lobaton; Amanda F Mejia; Blake E Dewey; Daniel S Reich; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Ann Appl Stat Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 1.959
Authors: Nathanael J Lee; Seung-Kwon Ha; Pascal Sati; Martina Absinta; Govind Nair; Nicholas J Luciano; Emily C Leibovitch; Cecil C Yen; Tracey A Rouault; Afonso C Silva; Steven Jacobson; Daniel S Reich Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jordan D Dworkin; Elizabeth M Sweeney; Matthew K Schindler; Salim Chahin; Daniel S Reich; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.881