4.3 Article

Persistent T1 hypointensity as an MRI marker for treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 764-769

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458507087842

Keywords

MRI; persistent black hole; sample size; negative binomial distribution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background MRI is often used as primary outcome measure in phase II clinical trials in multiple sclerosis (MS). Since persistent T1 hypointense lesions are a surrogate parameter for axonal damage and demyelination, they may serve as a marker for monitoring the efficacy of neuroprotective drugs. At present, a power analysis using black hole (BH) evolution as primary outcome measure has not been performed. Objective To assess the feasibility of using BH evolution on serial brain MR images as primary outcome measure in proof of concept studies in MS. Methods MRI-data obtained from 169 active RRMS patients were analysed for BH evolution by determining the cumulative number of contrast enhancing lesions (CEL) evolving into a persistent black hole (PBH) after 3 months. With a parametric simulation procedure, based on a statistical distribution fitting the data, sample sizes were calculated. Results 21.2% of the total number of CELs observed during the study period evolved into a PBH. Ring enhancing lesions evolved most frequently into a PBH (59.4%), followed by lesions larger than 10 mm (57.4%) and periventricular CELs (30.6%). The simulation procedure, based on the statistical negative binomial (NB) model resulted in a sample sizes between 200 subjects and 30 subjects per arm, for treatment effects ranging from 50% to 90% reduction of the number of CELs evolving into a PBH, respectively. Conclusion To perform a MRI monitored phase II clinical trial with a feasible sample size, using the evolution of CELs into PBHs as primary outcome parameter, a potent drug is required to obtain sufficient power.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available