4.7 Article

Regression of new gadolinium enhancing lesion activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 13, Pages 1092-1097

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000285426.73143.f7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Contrast enhancing lesions (CEL) is a common endpoint in multiple sclerosis ( MS) clinical trials. To minimize sample size or placebo exposure, a crossover design without a concurrent control group is attractive. Natural regression may confound this strategy. We assessed the degree of regression in monthly new gadolinium activity in relapsing-remitting (RR) placebo patients. Methods: A post hoc analysis was performed on 65 RRMS placebo patients in the Prevention of Relapses and disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis ( PRISMS) trial. Patients were originally selected for relapses but not preselected for MRI activity. Eleven MRI scans were taken at screening, baseline, and months 1 through 9. Monthly new CEL rates were examined using a random effects Poisson model. Patients were analyzed as a single group and by screening CEL count level subgroups: no, low, and high ( 0, 1 to 3, > 3 CEL). Results: A total of 32, 19, and 14 patients had no, low, and high CEL counts at screening. The monthly new CEL rates ( 95% CI) of all patients at baseline, months 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 9 were 2.0 ( 1.3, 2.9), 1.8 ( 1.3, 2.5), 1.4 ( 1.0, 2.0), and 1.2 ( 0.8, 1.7). Compared to baseline, the rate decreased by 10%, 27%, and 39%. The monthly rate of the no subgroup remained stable. The rates for both the low and high subgroups decreased by 4%, 29%, and 48% at months 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7 to 9 compared to baseline. Conclusions: Placebo relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients experience a decline of new gadolinium activity over 9 months. A crossover design without a concurrent comparison group may overestimate the treatment effect.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available