Ruben P A van Eijk1,2, Adriaan D de Jongh1, Stavros Nikolakopoulos2, Christopher J McDermott3, Marinus J C Eijkemans2, Kit C B Roes2,4, Leonard H van den Berg1. 1. Department of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Biostatistics & Research Support, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Sheffield, UK, and. 4. Department of Health Evidence, Radboud Medical Centre Utrecht, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Objective: The ALSFRS-R is limited by multidimensionality, which originates from the summation of various subscales. This prevents a direct comparison between patients with identical total scores. We aim to evaluate how multidimensionality affects the performance of the ALSFRS-R in clinical trials. Methods: We simulated clinical trial data with different treatment effects for the ALSFRS-R total score and its subscales (i.e. bulbar, fine motor, gross motor and respiratory). We considered scenarios where treatment reduced the rate of ALSFRS-R subscale decline either uniformly (i.e. all subscales respond identically to treatment) or non-uniformly (i.e. subscales respond differently to treatment). Two main analytical strategies were compared: (1) analyzing only the total score or (2) utilizing a subscale-based test (i.e. alternative strategy). For each analytical strategy, we calculated the empirical power and required sample size. Results: Both strategies are valid when there is no treatment benefit and provide adequate control of type 1 error. If all subscales respond identically to treatment, using the total score is the most powerful approach. As the differences in treatment responses between subscales increase, the more the total score becomes affected. For example, to detect a 40% reduction in the bulbar rate of decline with 80% power, the total score requires 1380 patients, whereas this is 336 when using the alternative strategy. Conclusions: Ignoring the multidimensional structure of the ALSFRS-R total score could have negative consequences for ALS clinical trials. We propose determining treatment benefit on a subscale level, prior to stating whether a treatment is generally effective.
Objective: The ALSFRS-R is limited by multidimensionality, which originates from the summation of various subscales. This prevents a direct comparison between patients with identical total scores. We aim to evaluate how multidimensionality affects the performance of the ALSFRS-R in clinical trials. Methods: We simulated clinical trial data with different treatment effects for the ALSFRS-R total score and its subscales (i.e. bulbar, fine motor, gross motor and respiratory). We considered scenarios where treatment reduced the rate of ALSFRS-R subscale decline either uniformly (i.e. all subscales respond identically to treatment) or non-uniformly (i.e. subscales respond differently to treatment). Two main analytical strategies were compared: (1) analyzing only the total score or (2) utilizing a subscale-based test (i.e. alternative strategy). For each analytical strategy, we calculated the empirical power and required sample size. Results: Both strategies are valid when there is no treatment benefit and provide adequate control of type 1 error. If all subscales respond identically to treatment, using the total score is the most powerful approach. As the differences in treatment responses between subscales increase, the more the total score becomes affected. For example, to detect a 40% reduction in the bulbar rate of decline with 80% power, the total score requires 1380 patients, whereas this is 336 when using the alternative strategy. Conclusions: Ignoring the multidimensional structure of the ALSFRS-R total score could have negative consequences for ALS clinical trials. We propose determining treatment benefit on a subscale level, prior to stating whether a treatment is generally effective.
Authors: Leigh E Colvin; Zachariah W Foster; Thor D Stein; Manisha Thakore-James; Mohammad Kian Salajegheh; Kendall Carr; Keith R Spencer; Nazifa Abdul Rauf; Latease Adams; James G Averill; Sean E Walker; Ian Robey; Victor E Alvarez; Bertrand R Huber; Ann C McKee; Neil W Kowall; Christopher B Brady Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 3.852
Authors: Benjamin Rix Brooks; Erik P Pioro; Jonathan Katz; Fumihiro Takahashi; Koji Takei; Jeffrey Zhang; Stephen Apple Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 3.852
Authors: Stephen A Goutman; Orla Hardiman; Ammar Al-Chalabi; Adriano Chió; Masha G Savelieff; Matthew C Kiernan; Eva L Feldman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 59.935
Authors: Charis Wong; Maria Stavrou; Elizabeth Elliott; Jenna M Gregory; Nigel Leigh; Ashwin A Pinto; Timothy L Williams; Jeremy Chataway; Robert Swingler; Mahesh K B Parmar; Nigel Stallard; Christopher J Weir; Richard A Parker; Amina Chaouch; Hisham Hamdalla; John Ealing; George Gorrie; Ian Morrison; Callum Duncan; Peter Connelly; Francisco Javier Carod-Artal; Richard Davenport; Pablo Garcia Reitboeck; Aleksandar Radunovic; Venkataramanan Srinivasan; Jenny Preston; Arpan R Mehta; Danielle Leighton; Stella Glasmacher; Emily Beswick; Jill Williamson; Amy Stenson; Christine Weaver; Judith Newton; Dawn Lyle; Rachel Dakin; Malcolm Macleod; Suvankar Pal; Siddharthan Chandran Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2021-10-23