4.3 Article

Sample sizes for lesion magnetisation transfer ratio outcomes in remyelination trials for multiple sclerosis

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND RELATED DISORDERS
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 237-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2013.09.007

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis; Remyelination; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetisation transfer ratio; Research design; Sample size

Funding

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  2. UCL-UCLH Biomedical Research Centre
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10058] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Enhancing remyelination in MS might improve function and protect axons from future damage. Lesion magnetisation transfer ratio (MTR) is sensitive to myelin content, and may be a useful measure for trials evaluating potential remyelinating agents. Objective: Estimating sample sizes required for a parallel group, placebo-controlled trial in MS using change in mean MTR of all T-2 lesions as a primary outcome measure. Methods: The primary sample size calculation was derived from data from a natural history study of relapsing remitting MS (n=18). The MTR values observed in demyelinated and remyelinated lesions in an ex vivo study were used to estimate the effect of remyelination on lesion MTR. The ex vivo data were also used to independently calculate sample sizes in order to inform the robustness of the in vivo estimates. Results: Calculations suggest that 30% remyelination of T2 lesions could be detected with 80% power in 38 (95% confidence interval 12-96) patients per arm based on the in vivo data, and in 66 per arm based on the ex vivo data. Conclusion: The sample sizes derived are in a range that makes MTR a feasible outcome measure for proof-of-concept trials of putative therapies achieving remyelination in MS lesions. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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