4.5 Article

Reliability of a cognitive endpoint for use in a multiple sclerosis pharmaceutical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 340, Issue 1-2, Pages 123-129

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.03.009

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Cognition; Neuropsychology; Assessment; Reliability; Endpoint

Funding

  1. Biogen Idec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Determine reliability and basic psychometric properties of a composite cognitive endpoint, MS-COG, for monitoring change in cognitive function in MS drug trials. Background: 50% of MS patients have cognitive impairment that impacts ability to work and quality of life. We selected neuropsychological tests based on sensitivity to MS cognitive impairment, availability of alternate forms, cross-cultural utility, and feasibility for multicenter trials, and assessed the reliability and validity of a composite endpoint, MS-COG. Design/methods: Administered SRT, BVMT-R, PASAT, and SDMT to 60 MS patients at 4 US centers twice over 45 days, along with symptom inventories by patients and informants. Results: The MS-COG had test-retest reliability of 0.91. Processing Speed and Memory indices had reliabilities of 0.89 and 0.86, with modest practice effects. Reliability was high for the RR MS and SP MS subgroups as well, with correlations of .90 and .93, respectively for MS-COG. Overall, 42% of subjects obtained MS-COG scores in the impaired range, with SP MS subjects performing 0.8 SD below RR MS subjects. Impairment correlated well (r = 0.37 to 0.40) with informant reports but was inconsistent with patient report, with the least reliable assessments by those with greater symptom severity. Conclusions: The MS-COG is a reliable, repeatable measure of MS cognitive functioning that is sensitive to cognitive impairment in SP MS and RR MS patients and feasible for multicenter clinical trials. Further development is warranted. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available