4.3 Article

The MSOAC approach to developing performance outcomes to measure and monitor multiple sclerosis disability

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 24, Issue 11, Pages 1469-1484

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458517723718

Keywords

MS disability; performance outcome measures; data standards; clinical trial database; regulatory qualification

Funding

  1. National Multiple Sclerosis Society grant [RG 4869-A-1]
  2. NMSS
  3. MRC [MC_PC_17114, MR/N026934/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Multiple Sclerosis Outcome Assessments Consortium (MSOAC) was formed by the National MS Society to develop improved measures of multiple sclerosis (MS)-related disability. Objectives: (1) To assess the current literature and available data on functional performance outcome measures (PerfOs) and (2) to determine suitability of using PerfOs to quantify MS disability in MS clinical trials. Methods: (1) Identify disability dimensions common in MS; (2) conduct a comprehensive literature review of measures for those dimensions; (3) develop an MS Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standard; (4) create a database of standardized, pooled clinical trial data; (5) analyze the pooled data to assess psychometric properties of candidate measures; and (6) work with regulatory agencies to use the measures as primary or secondary outcomes in MS clinical trials. Conclusion: Considerable data exist supporting measures of the functional domains ambulation, manual dexterity, vision, and cognition. A CDISC standard for MS (http://www.cdisc.org/therapeutic#MS) was published, allowing pooling of clinical trial data. MSOAC member organizations contributed clinical data from 16 trials, including 14,370 subjects. Data from placebo-arm subjects are available to qualified researchers. This integrated, standardized dataset is being analyzed to support qualification of disability endpoints by regulatory agencies.

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