4.4 Article

The EDSS-Plus, an improved endpoint for disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 94-105

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516638941

关键词

Disability evaluation; disease progression; endpoint determination; secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

资金

  1. Biogen (Cambridge, MA, USA)
  2. Czech Ministry of Education [PRVOUK-P26/LF1/4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) has wide scientific and regulatory precedent but limited ability to detect clinically relevant disability progression in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients, partly due to a lack of meaningful measurement of short-distance ambulatory and upper-extremity function. Objective: To present a rationale for a composite endpoint adding the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) and 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) to EDSS for SPMS disability progression assessment. Methods: Using the International Multiple Sclerosis Secondary Progressive Avonex Clinical Trial (IMPACT) placebo arm (n = 215) data, we analyzed disability progression using a novel progression endpoint, EDSS-Plus, defined as progression on >= 1 of 3 components (EDSS, T25FW, and/or 9HPT) confirmed >= 24 weeks apart and with a >= 20% minimum threshold change for T25FW and 9HPT. Results: Over 2 years, subjects classified as T25FW, 9HPT (dominant hand), or 9HPT (non-dominant hand) progressors worsened on average by 103.4%, 69.0%, and 59.2%, respectively, while non-progressors' times remained largely unchanged. Using EDSS-Plus, 59.5% of the patients had 24-week confirmed disability progression versus 24.7% (EDSS), 41.9% (T25FW), and 34.4% (9HPT (either hand)) on each component alone. Conclusion: The 24-week confirmed minimum worsening of >= 20% for T25FW and 9HPT clearly separates SPMS progressors from non-progressors. We propose that EDSS-Plus may represent an improved endpoint to identify SPMS disability progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据