Skip to main content

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Chapter
  • Print publication year: 2011
  • Online publication date: December 2011

19 - Selection, interpretation, and development of end-points for multiple sclerosis clinical trials

from Section II - Clinical trial methodology
Export citation
Summary
Image analysis software allows for quantitative estimation of widths, areas, and/or volumes of central nervous system (CNS) structures directly from digital images. Although atrophy is not pathologically specific, it primarily reflects irreversible tissue loss due to multiple sclerosis (MS), and therefore, it is a valuable marker of disease severity. Brain atrophy can be detected very early in the course of MS, and appears to progress almost from disease onset. Current evidence suggests that atrophy correlates better with neurologic measures of disability than do conventional lesion measurements. Atrophy is an attractive component of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based outcome assessment in MS clinical trials because it reflects diffuse pathologic processes that are not accounted for by lesion measurements, and yet it can still be measured from images acquired with conventional MRI pulse sequences. Gray matter atrophy may provide a feasible measure of the extent of cortical pathology.

Keywords:

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Multiple Sclerosis Therapeutics
  • Online ISBN: 9781139023986
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139023986
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

References

1. Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints: Preferred Definitions and Conceptual Framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 89–95.
2. Frohman EM, Filippi M, Stuve O, et al. Characterizing the mechanisms of progression in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2005; 62: 1345–56.
3. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status score (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33:1444–52.
4. Fischer JS, Rudick RA, Cutter GR, Reingold SC. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical Outcome Assessment. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 244–50.
5. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122: 871–82.
6. Rudick RA, Polman CH, Cohen JA. Assessing disability progression with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2009; 15: 984–97.
7. Balcer LJ, Baier ML, Cohen JA. Contrast letter acuity as a visual component for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Neurology 2003; 61: 1367–73.
8. Balcer LJ, Galetta SL, Calabresi PA. Natalizumab reduces visual loss in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Neurology 2007; 68: 1299–304.
9. Sartori E, Gilles E. Assessment of cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2006; 245: 169–75.
10. Huijbregts SCJ, Kalkers NF, de Sonneville LMJ, et al. Cognitive impairment and decline in different MS subtypes. J Neurol Sci 2006; 245: 187–94.
11. Brochet G, Deloire MSA, Bonnet M, et al. Should SDMT substitute for PASAT in MSFC? A 5-year longitudinal study. Mult Scler 2008; 14: 1242–9.
12. Drake AS, Weinstock-Guttman B, Morrow SA, et al. Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: replacing the PASAT with the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 228–37.
13. Morrow SA, O’Connor PW, Polman CH, et al. Evaluation of the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) and the MS neuropsychological screening questionnaire (MSNQ) in natalizumab-treated MS patients over 48 weeks. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 1385–92.
14. Schwid SR, Goodman AD, McDermott MP, et al. Quantitative functional measures in MS: What is a reliable change? Neurology 2002; 58: 1294–6.
15. Kaufman M, Moyer D, Norton J. The significant change for the Timed 25-Foot Walk in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2000; 6: 286–90.
16. Bosma LVAE, Kragt JJ, Khaleli Z, et al. Progression on the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite in multiple sclerosis: what is the optimal cut-off for the three components? Mult Scler 2010; 16: 862–67.
17. Kragt JJ, Van Der Linden FAH, Nielsen JM, et al. Clinical impact of 20% worsening on timed 25-foot Walk and 9-hole Peg Test in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2006; 12: 594–8.
18. van Winsen LML, Kragt JJ, Hoogervorst ELJ, et al. Outcome measurement in multiple sclerosis: detection of clinically relevant improvement. Mult Scler 2010; 16: 604–10.
19. Owsley C. Contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmol Clin N Am 2003; 16: 171–7.
20. Mills RJ, Young CA, Pallant JF, et al. Development of a patient reported outcome scale for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: The Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010; 8: 22.
21. Meads DM, Doward LC, McKenna SP, et al. The development and validation of the Unidimensional Fatigue Impact Scale (U-FIS). Mult Scler 2009; 15: 1228–8.
22. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. (Accessed October 10, 2010.)
23. Mehta LR, Schwid SR, Arnold DL, et al. Proof of concept studies for tissue-protective agents in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009; 15: 542–6.
24. Healy B, Valsasina P, Fillippi M, et al. Sample size requirements for treatment effects using gray matter, white matter and whole brain volume in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009; 80: 1218–23.
25. Katz R. Biomarkers and Surrogate Markers: An FDA Perspective. NeuroRx 2004; 1: 189–95.
26. Fleming TR. Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. Health Affairs 2005; 24: 67–78.
27. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and Operational Criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431–40.
28. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med 1992; 11: 167–78.
29. Lin DY, Fleming RT, De Gruttola V. Estimating the proportion of the treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Stat Med 1997; 16: 1515–27.
30. Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Alonso A, Buyse M. A perspective on surrogate endpoints in controlled clinical trials. Stat Meth Med Res 2004; 13: 177–206.
31. Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 605–13.
32. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and Morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 781–8.
33. Riggs BL, Hodgson ST, O’Fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 802–9.
34. International Chronic Granulomatous Disease Cooperative Study Group. A controlled trial of interferon gamma to prevent infection in chronic granulomatous disease. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 509–16.
35. Temple R. Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? J Am Med Assoc 1999; 282: 790–5.
Cancel
Confirm
×