Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease, it is a challenge to capture disease activity of multiple sclerosis (MS) in a reliable and valid way. Therefore, it can be difficult to assess the true efficacy of interventions in clinical trials. In phase III trials in MS, the traditionally used primary clinical outcome measures are the Expanded Disability Status Scale and the relapse rate. Secondary outcome measures in these trials are the number or volume of T2 hyperintense lesions and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. These secondary outcome measures are often primary outcome measures in phase II trials in MS. Despite several limitations, the traditional clinical measures are still the mainstay for assessing treatment efficacy. Newer and potentially valuable outcome measures increasingly used or explored in MS trials are, clinically, the MS Functional Composite and patient-reported outcome measures, and on MRI, brain atrophy and the formation of persisting black holes. Several limitations of these measures have been addressed and further improvements will probably be proposed. Major improvements are the coverage of additional functional domains such as cognitive functioning and assessment of the ability to carry out activities of daily living. The development of multidimensional measures is promising because these measures have the potential to cover the full extent of MS activity and progression. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical background and recent developments of outcome measures in MS trials. We discuss the advantages and limitations of various measures, including newer assessments such as optical coherence tomography, biomarkers in body fluids and the concept of ‘no evidence of disease activity’.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)217-236
Number of pages20
JournalCNS Drugs
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2017

Cite this

@article{c06b588bea9d4bd4bb20e44e246f6316,
title = "Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis",
abstract = "Due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease, it is a challenge to capture disease activity of multiple sclerosis (MS) in a reliable and valid way. Therefore, it can be difficult to assess the true efficacy of interventions in clinical trials. In phase III trials in MS, the traditionally used primary clinical outcome measures are the Expanded Disability Status Scale and the relapse rate. Secondary outcome measures in these trials are the number or volume of T2 hyperintense lesions and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. These secondary outcome measures are often primary outcome measures in phase II trials in MS. Despite several limitations, the traditional clinical measures are still the mainstay for assessing treatment efficacy. Newer and potentially valuable outcome measures increasingly used or explored in MS trials are, clinically, the MS Functional Composite and patient-reported outcome measures, and on MRI, brain atrophy and the formation of persisting black holes. Several limitations of these measures have been addressed and further improvements will probably be proposed. Major improvements are the coverage of additional functional domains such as cognitive functioning and assessment of the ability to carry out activities of daily living. The development of multidimensional measures is promising because these measures have the potential to cover the full extent of MS activity and progression. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical background and recent developments of outcome measures in MS trials. We discuss the advantages and limitations of various measures, including newer assessments such as optical coherence tomography, biomarkers in body fluids and the concept of ‘no evidence of disease activity’.",
author = "{van Munster}, {Caspar E.P.} and Uitdehaag, {Bernard M.J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40263-017-0412-5",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "217--236",
journal = "CNS Drugs",
issn = "1172-7047",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis. / van Munster, Caspar E.P.; Uitdehaag, Bernard M.J.

In: CNS Drugs, Vol. 31, No. 3, 01.03.2017, p. 217-236.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis

AU - van Munster, Caspar E.P.

AU - Uitdehaag, Bernard M.J.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease, it is a challenge to capture disease activity of multiple sclerosis (MS) in a reliable and valid way. Therefore, it can be difficult to assess the true efficacy of interventions in clinical trials. In phase III trials in MS, the traditionally used primary clinical outcome measures are the Expanded Disability Status Scale and the relapse rate. Secondary outcome measures in these trials are the number or volume of T2 hyperintense lesions and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. These secondary outcome measures are often primary outcome measures in phase II trials in MS. Despite several limitations, the traditional clinical measures are still the mainstay for assessing treatment efficacy. Newer and potentially valuable outcome measures increasingly used or explored in MS trials are, clinically, the MS Functional Composite and patient-reported outcome measures, and on MRI, brain atrophy and the formation of persisting black holes. Several limitations of these measures have been addressed and further improvements will probably be proposed. Major improvements are the coverage of additional functional domains such as cognitive functioning and assessment of the ability to carry out activities of daily living. The development of multidimensional measures is promising because these measures have the potential to cover the full extent of MS activity and progression. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical background and recent developments of outcome measures in MS trials. We discuss the advantages and limitations of various measures, including newer assessments such as optical coherence tomography, biomarkers in body fluids and the concept of ‘no evidence of disease activity’.

AB - Due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease, it is a challenge to capture disease activity of multiple sclerosis (MS) in a reliable and valid way. Therefore, it can be difficult to assess the true efficacy of interventions in clinical trials. In phase III trials in MS, the traditionally used primary clinical outcome measures are the Expanded Disability Status Scale and the relapse rate. Secondary outcome measures in these trials are the number or volume of T2 hyperintense lesions and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. These secondary outcome measures are often primary outcome measures in phase II trials in MS. Despite several limitations, the traditional clinical measures are still the mainstay for assessing treatment efficacy. Newer and potentially valuable outcome measures increasingly used or explored in MS trials are, clinically, the MS Functional Composite and patient-reported outcome measures, and on MRI, brain atrophy and the formation of persisting black holes. Several limitations of these measures have been addressed and further improvements will probably be proposed. Major improvements are the coverage of additional functional domains such as cognitive functioning and assessment of the ability to carry out activities of daily living. The development of multidimensional measures is promising because these measures have the potential to cover the full extent of MS activity and progression. In this review, we provide an overview of the historical background and recent developments of outcome measures in MS trials. We discuss the advantages and limitations of various measures, including newer assessments such as optical coherence tomography, biomarkers in body fluids and the concept of ‘no evidence of disease activity’.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85011829521&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40263-017-0412-5

DO - 10.1007/s40263-017-0412-5

M3 - Review article

VL - 31

SP - 217

EP - 236

JO - CNS Drugs

JF - CNS Drugs

SN - 1172-7047

IS - 3

ER -