Evaluation of Simvastatin as a Disease-Modifying Treatment for Patients With Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current treatments manage symptoms of Parkinson disease (PD), but no known treatment slows disease progression. Preclinical and epidemiological studies support the potential use of statins as disease-modifying therapy. Objective: To determine whether simvastatin has potential as a disease-modifying treatment for patients with moderate PD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial, a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled futility trial, was conducted between March 2016 and May 2020 within 23 National Health Service Trusts in England. Participants aged 40 to 90 years with a diagnosis of idiopathic PD, with a modified Hoehn and Yahr stage of 3.0 or less while taking medication, and taking dopaminergic medication with wearing-off phenomenon were included. Data were analyzed from May 2020 to September 2020, with additional analysis in February 2021. Interventions: Participants were allocated 1:1 to simvastatin or matched placebo via a computer-generated random sequence, stratified by site and Hoehn and Yahr stage. In the simvastatin arm, participants entered a 1-month phase of simvastatin, 40 mg daily, followed by 23 months of simvastatin, 80 mg daily, before a 2-month washout period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary outcome was 24-month change in Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III score measured while not taking medication (high scores indicate worse outcome). The primary futility analysis included participants who commenced the 80-mg phase and had valid primary outcome data. The safety analysis included all participants who commenced trial treatment and is reported by dose at time of event. Results: Of 332 patients assessed for eligibility, 32 declined and 65 were ineligible. Of 235 recruited participants, 97 (41%) were female, 233 (99%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (9.4) years. A total of 216 patients progressed to the 80-mg dose. Primary outcome analysis (n = 178) indicated the simvastatin group had an additional deterioration in MDS-UPDRS III score while not taking medication at 24 months compared with the placebo group (1.52 points; 2-sided 80% CI, -0.77 to 3.80; 1-sided futility test P = .006). A total of 37 serious adverse events (AEs), including 3 deaths, and 171 AEs were reported for participants receiving 0-mg simvastatin; 37 serious AEs and 150 AEs were reported for participants taking 40 mg or 80 mg of simvastatin. Four participants withdrew from the trial because of an AE. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, simvastatin was futile as a disease-modifying therapy in patients with PD of moderate severity, providing no evidence to support proceeding to a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: 16108482.

Simvastatin as a neuroprotective treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD STAT): protocol for a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled futility study.

INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative condition affecting approximately 185,000 people in the UK. No drug has been proven to slow disease progression. Epidemiological and pre-clinical data support simvastatin, a widely used cholesterol-lowering drug with a well-established safety profile, having neuroprotective properties. The aim of this study (Simvastatin as a neuroprotective treatment for PD (PD STAT)) is to determine whether simvastatin has the potential to slow PD progression. The study is part of the International Linked Clinical Trials initiative coordinated by The Cure Parkinson's Trust. This paper describes the protocol for the PD STAT study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PD STAT is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multi-centre, parallel group, futility trial in patients with PD of mild-moderate severity. 235 participants have been recruited and randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral simvastatin or matched placebo. Treatment involves a 1-month low-dose phase (40 mg daily), followed by a 23-month high-dose phase (80 mg daily) and ends with a 2-month washout period. Participants are reviewed at clinic visits at 1 month, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 26 months post-baseline, with interim telephone follow-up to monitor for adverse events.The primary outcome is the change in the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III motor subscale score in the practically defined OFF medication state (OFF state) between baseline and 24 months. Primary analysis will be on a modified intention to treat basis and will include only those participants who progress to the high-dose phase of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee. The results will be disseminated via research articles in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings, as well as disseminated via patient groups, websites and networks. A summary of the study findings will be posted to participants at the end of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16108482 (prospectively registered); EudraCT 2015-000148-40; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02787590; Pre-results.

Assessment of a home-based standing frame programme in people with progressive multiple sclerosis (SUMS): a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: People severely impaired with progressive multiple sclerosis spend much of their day sitting, with very few options to improve motor function. As a result, secondary physical and psychosocial complications can occur. Effective and feasible self-management strategies are needed to reduce sedentary behaviour and enhance motor function. In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a home-based, self-managed, standing frame programme. METHODS: SUMS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial of people with progressive multiple sclerosis and severe mobility impairment, undertaken in eight centres from two regions in the UK. The study had assessor-blinded outcome assessments with use of clinician-rated and patient-rated measures at baseline, 20 weeks, and 36 weeks. After baseline assessment, participants were randomised (1:1) by computer-generated assignment to either a standing frame programme plus usual care or usual care alone. The intervention consisted of two home-based physiotherapy sessions (60 min each) to set up the standing frame programme, supported by six follow-up telephone calls (15 min per call). Participants were asked to stand for 30 min, three times per week over 20 weeks, and encouraged to continue in the longer term, although no further physiotherapy support was provided. The primary clinical outcome was motor function measured by the Amended Motor Club Assessment (AMCA) score at week 36, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding only patients who were deemed ineligible after randomisation, those who withdrew from the trial and were unwilling for their previously collected data to be used, or those who did not provide baseline and week 36 measurements). A 9-point AMCA score change was considered clinically meaningful a priori. Adverse events were collected through a daily preformatted patient diary throughout the 36 weeks and analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. An economic assessment established the resources required to provide the standing frame programme, estimated intervention costs, and estimate cost effectiveness. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN69614598. FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2015, and April 28, 2017, 285 people with progressive multiple sclerosis were screened for eligibility, and 140 were randomly assigned to either the standing frame group (n=71) or the usual care group (n=69). Of these, 122 completed the primary outcome assessment (61 participants in both groups) for the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The use of the standing frame resulted in a significant increase in AMCA score compared with that for usual care alone, with a fully adjusted between-group difference in AMCA score at 36 weeks of 4·7 points (95% CI 1·9-7·5; p=0·0014). For adverse events collected through patient diaries, we observed a disparity between the two groups in the frequency of short-term musculoskeletal pain (486 [41%] of 1188 adverse events in the standing frame group vs 160 [22%] of 736 adverse events in the usual care group), which was potentially related to the intervention. The musculoskeletal pain lasted longer than 7 days in five participants (two in the standing frame group and three in the usual care group). No serious adverse events related to the study occurred. The standing frame group had a mean 0·018 (95% CI -0·014 to 0·051) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with those of the usual care group, and the estimated incremental cost-per-QALY was approximately £14 700. INTERPRETATION: The standing frame programme significantly increased motor function in people with severe progressive multiple sclerosis, although not to the degree that was considered a priori as clinically meaningful. The standing frame is one of the first physiotherapy interventions to be effective in this population. We suggest that the programme is feasible as a home-based, self-managed intervention that could be routinely implemented in clinical practice in the UK. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research.

A self-management programme to reduce falls and improve safe mobility in people with secondary progressive MS: the BRiMS feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Balance, mobility impairments and falls are common problems for people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Our ongoing research has led to the development of Balance Right in MS (BRiMS), a 13-week home- and group-based exercise and education programme intended to improve balance and encourage safer mobility. OBJECTIVE: This feasibility trial aimed to obtain the necessary data and operational experience to finalise the planning of a future definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Randomised controlled feasibility trial. Participants were block randomised 1 : 1. Researcher-blinded assessments were scheduled at baseline and at 15 and 27 weeks post randomisation. As is appropriate in a feasibility trial, statistical analyses were descriptive rather than involving formal/inferential comparisons. The qualitative elements utilised template analysis as the chosen analytical framework. SETTING: Four sites across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligibility criteria included having a diagnosis of secondary progressive MS, an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of between ≥ 4.0 and ≤ 7.0 points and a self-report of two or more falls in the preceding 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention - manualised 13-week education and exercise programme (BRiMS) plus usual care. Comparator - usual care alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trial feasibility, proposed outcomes for the definitive trial (including impact of MS, mobility, quality of life and falls), feasibility of the BRiMS programme (via process evaluation) and economic data. RESULTS: A total of 56 participants (mean age 59.7 years, standard deviation 9.7 years; 66% female; median EDSS score of 6.0 points, interquartile range 6.0-6.5 points) were recruited in 5 months; 30 were block randomised to the intervention group. The demographic and clinical data were broadly comparable at baseline; however, the intervention group scored worse on the majority of baseline outcome measures. Eleven participants (19.6%) withdrew or were lost to follow-up. Worsening of MS-related symptoms unrelated to the trial was the most common reason (n = 5) for withdrawal. Potential primary and secondary outcomes and economic data had completion rates of > 98% for all those assessed. However, the overall return rate for the patient-reported falls diary was 62%. After adjusting for baseline score, the differences between the groups (intervention compared with usual care) at week 27 for the potential primary outcomes were MS Walking Scale (12-item) version 2 -7.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -17.2 to 1.8], MS Impact Scale (29-item) version 2 (MSIS-29vs2) physical 0.6 (95% CI -7.8 to 9) and MSIS-29vs2 psychological -0.4 (95% CI -9.9 to 9) (negative score indicates improvement). After the removal of one outlier, a total of 715 falls were self-reported over the 27-week trial period, with substantial variation between individuals (range 0-93 falls). Of these 715 falls, 101 (14%) were reported as injurious. Qualitative feedback indicated that trial processes and participant burden were acceptable, and participants highlighted physical and behavioural changes that they perceived to result from undertaking BRiMS. Engagement varied, influenced by a range of condition- and context-related factors. Suggestions to improve the utility and accessibility of BRiMS were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the trial procedures are feasible and acceptable, and retention, programme engagement and outcome completion rates were sufficient to satisfy the a priori progression criteria. Challenges were experienced in some areas of data collection, such as completion of daily diaries. FUTURE WORK: Further development of BRiMS is required to address logistical issues and enhance user-satisfaction and adherence. Following this, a definitive trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the BRiMS intervention is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13587999. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) often have problems with walking and balance, which lead them to fall. Undertaking exercise and learning about falls prevention could help reduce injury risk and improve mobility. We developed a mobility, balance and falls programme called Balance Right in MS (BRiMS). Before testing its effectiveness in a large-scale trial, we needed to conduct a small-scale version of the trial. We asked people with SPMS who had balance and mobility problems to be assigned by chance to undertake the BRiMS programme plus their usual care, or to continue with usual care only. Questionnaires were used to ask people about their mobility, falls and quality of life, and we measured their balance and activity levels. We interviewed participants about BRiMS and being in the trial, and collected information about costs. Fifty-six people entered the trial from three areas of the south-west and from Ayrshire. At completion of the study we were able to review 44 people. The key measures were completed by 98% of those we assessed, but only around half (62%) of the diaries detailing falls were returned. As this was a feasibility trial, the numbers were too small for us to look at differences between the groups. Participants liked the BRiMS programme; some did a lot of exercise and learning activities, but most did not manage the amount we asked them to do. People reported feeling a little overwhelmed by the educational content of BRiMS, and that this should be reduced in future. They told us that they felt that their balance had improved and that they fell less frequently after the BRiMS programme. Our assessment of the trial methods we used showed that it would be possible to conduct a full-scale trial using this design, but that we need to adapt the BRiMS programme further to make it more user-friendly.

Machine-learning based identification of undiagnosed dementia in primary care: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Up to half of patients with dementia may not receive a formal diagnosis, limiting access to appropriate services. It is hypothesised that it may be possible to identify undiagnosed dementia from a profile of symptoms recorded in routine clinical practice. AIM: The aim of this study is to develop a machine learning-based model that could be used in general practice to detect dementia from routinely collected NHS data. The model would be a useful tool for identifying people who may be living with dementia but have not been formally diagnosed. DESIGN & SETTING: The study involved a case-control design and analysis of primary care data routinely collected over a 2-year period. Dementia diagnosed during the study period was compared to no diagnosis of dementia during the same period using pseudonymised routinely collected primary care clinical data. METHOD: Routinely collected Read-encoded data were obtained from 18 consenting GP surgeries across Devon, for 26 483 patients aged >65 years. The authors determined Read codes assigned to patients that may contribute to dementia risk. These codes were used as features to train a machine-learning classification model to identify patients that may have underlying dementia. RESULTS: The model obtained sensitivity and specificity values of 84.47% and 86.67%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results show that routinely collected primary care data may be used to identify undiagnosed dementia. The methodology is promising and, if successfully developed and deployed, may help to increase dementia diagnosis in primary care.

Improving the quality of cognitive screening assessments: ACEmobile, an iPad-based version of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring reliable administration and reporting of cognitive screening tests are fundamental in establishing good clinical practice and research. This study captured the rate and type of errors in clinical practice, using the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III (ACE-III), and then the reduction in error rate using a computerized alternative, the ACEmobile app. METHODS: In study 1, we evaluated ACE-III assessments completed in National Health Service (NHS) clinics (n = 87) for administrator error. In study 2, ACEmobile and ACE-III were then evaluated for their ability to capture accurate measurement. RESULTS: In study 1, 78% of clinically administered ACE-IIIs were either scored incorrectly or had arithmetical errors. In study 2, error rates seen in the ACE-III were reduced by 85%-93% using ACEmobile. DISCUSSION: Error rates are ubiquitous in routine clinical use of cognitive screening tests and the ACE-III. ACEmobile provides a framework for supporting reduced administration, scoring, and arithmetical error during cognitive screening.

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol protects against MPP+ toxicity in SH-SY5Y cells by restoring proteins involved in mitochondrial biogenesis.

Proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) activation can result in transcription of proteins involved in oxidative stress defence and mitochondrial biogenesis which could rescue mitochondrial dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD).The PPARγ agonist pioglitazone is protective in models of PD; however side effects have limited its clinical use. The cannabinoid Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) may have PPARγ dependent anti-oxidant properties. Here we investigate the effects of Δ9-THC and pioglitazone on mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative stress. Differentiated SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells were exposed to the PD relevant mitochondrial complex 1 inhibitor 1-methyl-4-phenylpyridinium iodide (MPP+). We found that only Δ9-THC was able to restore mitochondrial content in MPP+ treated SH-SY5Y cells in a PPARγ dependent manner by increasing expression of the PPARγ co-activator 1α (PGC-1α), the mitochondrial transcription factor (TFAM) as well as mitochondrial DNA content. Co-application of Δ9-THC with pioglitazone further increased the neuroprotection against MPP+ toxicity as compared to pioglitazone treatment alone. Furthermore, using lentiviral knock down of the PPARγ receptor we showed that, unlike pioglitazone, Δ9-THC resulted in a PPARγ dependent reduction of MPP+ induced oxidative stress. We therefore suggest that, in contrast to pioglitazone, Δ9-THC mediates neuroprotection via PPARγ-dependent restoration of mitochondrial content which may be beneficial for PD treatment.

Time- and Region-Specific Season of Birth Effects in Multiple Sclerosis in the United Kingdom.

IMPORTANCE: The reports of seasonal variation in the births of people who later develop multiple sclerosis (MS) have been challenged and attributed to the background pattern in the general population, resulting in a false association. OBJECTIVE: To study the seasonality of MS births after adjusting for temporal and regional confounding factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A study was conducted using case-control data from 8 MS-specialized centers from the United Kingdom, MS cases from a population-based study in the Lothian and Border regions of Scotland, and death records from the UK Registrar General. Participants included 21 138 patients with MS and control data from the UK Office of National Statistics and the UK government office regions. The seasonality of MS births was evaluated using the Walter and Elwood test, after adjusting for temporal and regional variations in the live births of the UK population. The study was conducted from January 16, 2014, to September 2, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: Analysis of the general population indicated that seasonal differences are present across time and region in the United Kingdom, with both factors contributing to the monthly distribution of live births. We were able to demonstrate that, when adjusting for the temporal and regional variations in the live births of the UK population, there was a significant season of birth effect in patients with MS, with an increased risk of disease in the peak month (April) compared with the trough month (November) (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.41) and 15.68% fewer people who developed MS being born in November (observed to expected birth ratio, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.76-0.92). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Season of birth is a risk factor for MS in the United Kingdom and cannot be attributed to the background pattern in the general population. The reasons for the variations in birth rates in the general population are unclear, but not taking them into consideration could lead to false-positive associations.

A review of clinical trial designs used to detect a disease-modifying effect of drug therapy in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modification clinical trials in neurodegenerative disorders have struggled to separate symptomatic effects of putative agents from disease-modification. In response, a variety of clinical trial designs have been developed. A systematic review was undertaken to examine which trial designs have been used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) to detect disease-modifying, as opposed to symptomatic, drug effects. In addition we aimed to identify novel clinical trial designs used in the past or planned for use in the future. We aimed to critique whether the methods used would have identified true disease-modification. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (1980-2015) were searched to identify papers meriting review in full. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify unpublished or planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs in PD or AD which aimed to demonstrate the disease-modifying properties of drug therapy and differentiate that benefit from any symptomatic effect. RESULTS: 128 RCTs were finally included: 84 in AD (59 published, 25 unpublished); 44 in PD (36 published, 8 unpublished). A variety of clinical trial designs were applied including long-term follow-up, wash-in and wash-out analyses, randomised delayed-start, the use of time-to-event outcome measures and surrogate disease progression biomarkers. Deficiencies in each of these design strategies, the quantity of missing data in included RCTs and the methods used to deal with missing data, meant that none of the included studies convincingly demonstrated disease-modification. No truly novel clinical trial designs were identified. CONCLUSION: We currently believe that the best clinical trial design available to demonstrate disease-modification is a long-term follow-up study, in which an examination is made for sustained divergence in outcome measures between treatment arms over the study period.

The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel-group multicentre trial and economic evaluation of cannabinoids to slow progression in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The Cannabinoid Use in Progressive Inflammatory brain Disease (CUPID) trial aimed to determine whether or not oral Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) slowed the course of progressive multiple sclerosis (MS); evaluate safety of cannabinoid administration; and, improve methods for testing treatments in progressive MS. OBJECTIVES: There were three objectives in the CUPID study: (1) to evaluate whether or not Δ(9)-THC could slow the course of progressive MS; (2) to assess the long-term safety of Δ(9)-THC; and (3) to explore newer ways of conducting clinical trials in progressive MS. DESIGN: The CUPID trial was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre trial. Patients were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to Δ(9)-THC or placebo. Randomisation was balanced according to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, study site and disease type. Analyses were by intention to treat, following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan. A cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy, Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analyses and an economic evaluation were undertaken. SETTING: Twenty-seven UK sites. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18-65 years with primary or secondary progressive MS, 1-year evidence of disease progression and baseline EDSS 4.0-6.5. INTERVENTIONS: Oral Δ(9)-THC (maximum 28 mg/day) or matching placebo. ASSESSMENT VISITS: Three and 6 months, and then 6-monthly up to 36 or 42 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were time to EDSS progression, and change in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 version 2 (MSIS-29v2) 20-point physical subscale (MSIS-29phys) score. Various secondary patient- and clinician-reported outcomes and MRI outcomes were assessed. RMT analyses examined performance of MS-specific rating scales as measurement instruments and tested for a symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation estimated mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Effectiveness - recruitment targets were achieved. Of the 498 randomised patients (332 to active and 166 to placebo), 493 (329 active and 164 placebo) were analysed. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: no significant treatment effect; hazard ratio EDSS score progression (active : placebo) 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.23]; and estimated between-group difference in MSIS-29phys score (active-placebo) -0.9 points (95% CI -2.0 to 0.2 points). Secondary clinical and MRI outcomes: no significant treatment effects. Safety - at least one serious adverse event: 35% and 28% of active and placebo patients, respectively. RMT analyses - scale evaluation: MSIS-29 version 2, MS Walking Scale-12 version 2 and MS Spasticity Scale-88 were robust measurement instruments. There was no clear symptomatic or disease-modifying treatment effect. Economic evaluation - estimated mean incremental cost to NHS over usual care, over 3 years £27,443.20 per patient. No between-group difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The CUPID trial failed to demonstrate a significant treatment effect in primary or secondary outcomes. There were no major safety concerns, but unwanted side effects seemed to affect compliance. Participants were more disabled than in previous studies and deteriorated less than expected, possibly reducing our ability to detect treatment effects. RMT analyses supported performance of MS-specific rating scales as measures, enabled group- and individual person-level examination of treatment effects, but did not influence study inferences. The intervention had significant additional costs with no improvement in health outcomes; therefore, it was dominated by usual care and not cost-effective. Future work should focus on determining further factors to predict clinical deterioration, to inform the development of new studies, and modifying treatments in order to minimise side effects and improve study compliance. The absence of disease-modifying treatments in progressive MS warrants further studies of the cannabinoid pathway in potential neuroprotection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62942668. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, the Medical Research Council Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Multiple Sclerosis Society and Multiple Sclerosis Trust. The report will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Lending a hand: can DASH items help ABILHAND improve manual ability measurement in multiple sclerosis?

BACKGROUND: Our examination in multiple sclerosis (MS) of the ABILHAND, a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument measuring manual ability, identified limited measurement range and precision. These deficiencies could lead to type II errors in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to determine if ABILHAND's measurement performance in MS can be improved by adding relevant items from the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scale (DASH). METHODS: The 23-item ABILHAND and 30-item DASH were administered to 461 people with MS. Data from the ABILHAND were combined with 16 DASH items to create a 39-item scale (AD-39). Using Rasch Measurement Theory methods, we compared the psychometric properties of AD-39 with ABILHAND. RESULTS: Data were analysed from 300 people. AD-39 performed robustly as a measure and had greater measurement range, lower floor and ceiling effects, and higher reliability (person separation index 0.97) than ABILHAND. Surprisingly, AD-39 appeared no better than ABILHAND at detecting group differences in self-reported hand function. CONCLUSION: Despite improving some psychometric properties, adding 16 DASH items to the ABILHAND did not improve its measurement performance to the degree expected. Our explanations for this anomaly emphasise the importance of evidence-based, conceptually driven scale modifications guided by hypothesis testing psychometric methods.

Using 'dead or dependent' as an outcome measure in clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Simple, robust, sensitive and clinically meaningful outcome measures are required for neuroprotective trials in Parkinson's disease (PD). We explored the feasibility of a composite binary outcome measure, 'dead or dependent', in such trials using data from a prospective follow-up study of an incident cohort of PD patients. METHODS: Two hundred incident patients had an annual follow-up, including assessment of the Hoehn-Yahr stage (H-Y) and Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale (S&E). Annual scores were converted into binary variables (H-Y <3 vs H-Y ≥3, and S&E ≥80% vs S&E <80%). A new outcome of 'dead or dependent' was also created, with dependence in activities of daily living defined as S&E <80%. Using these data, sample sizes were calculated for a hypothetical three-year randomised trial in which the trial outcome was defined by a binary clinical variable, all-cause mortality, or PD-related mortality. RESULTS: At 3 years, 18.0% of patients were dead and 38.4% were dead or dependent. At 80% power, large sample sizes were required if PD-related mortality (n=1938 per study arm) or all-cause mortality (n=734) were used as the outcome, even for large treatment effects (30% reduction in relative risk). The new outcome of 'death or dependency' required the smallest sample sizes of all the outcome measures (n=277 for 30% reduction in relative risk, 627 for a 20% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: 'Death or dependency' is a feasible and potentially useful outcome measure in PD trials of neuroprotective agents, but further work is required to validate its use and define dependency.

A systematic review of biomarkers for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Using surrogate biomarkers for disease progression as endpoints in neuroprotective clinical trials may help differentiate symptomatic effects of potential neuroprotective agents from true slowing of the neurodegenerative process. A systematic review was undertaken to determine what biomarkers for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease exist and how well they perform. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase (1950-2011) were searched using five search strategies. Abstracts were assessed to identify papers meriting review in full. Studies of participants with probable Alzheimer's disease diagnosed by formal criteria were included. We made no restriction on age, disease duration, or drug treatment. We only included studies with a longitudinal design, in which the putative biomarker and clinical measure were both measured at least twice, as this is the only appropriate study design to use when developing a disease progression biomarker. We included studies which attempted to draw associations between the changes over time in the biomarker used to investigate disease progression and a clinical measure of disease progression. RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies were finally included. The commonest biomarker modality examined was brain MRI (17/59, 29% of included studies). Median follow-up in included studies was only 1.0 (IQR 0.8-1.7) year and most studies only measured the putative biomarker and clinical measure twice. Included studies were generally of poor quality with small numbers of participants (median 31 (IQR 17 to 64)), applied excessively restrictive study entry criteria, had flawed methodologies and conducted overly simplistic statistical analyses without adjusting for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any biomarker as an outcome measure for disease progression in Alzheimer's disease trials. However, further investigation into the efficacy of using MRI measurements of ventricular volume and whole brain volume appeared to be merited. A provisional 'roadmap' to improve the quality of future disease progression biomarker studies is presented.

Accumulation of α-synuclein in the bowel of patients in the pre-clinical phase of Parkinson's disease.

Parkinson's disease primarily affects the central nervous system, but autopsy and small patient studies have revealed autonomic nervous system pathology in most cases. We looked for α-synuclein pathology in routinely acquired biopsies from patients and matched controls. Immunocytochemistry was performed and assessed blind to the clinical diagnoses. One hundred and seventeen gastrointestinal tissue samples from 62 patients, and 161 samples from 161 controls, were examined. Twelve biopsies from seven patients showed accumulation of α-synuclein within mucosal and submucosal nerve fibres, and ganglia, which was more extensive with an antibody to phosphorylated, than with an antibody to non-phosphorylated, α-synuclein. These included gastric, duodenal and colonic biopsies, and were taken up to 8 years prior to the onset of motor symptoms. All patients with positive biopsies had early autonomic symptoms and all controls were negative. This large scale study demonstrates that accumulation of α-synuclein in the gastrointestinal tract is a highly specific finding that could be used to confirm a clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. We have shown that α-synuclein accumulation occurs prior to the onset of motor symptoms in the upper, as well as the lower gastrointestinal tract, remains present in serial biopsies until the onset of motor symptoms and is predominantly composed of phosphorylated α-synuclein. Accumulation of α-synuclein in the bowel therefore offers an accessible biomarker which allows further study of the early stages of the disease and could be of value in the assessment of disease modifying treatments.

Effect of dronabinol on progression in progressive multiple sclerosis (CUPID): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory evidence has shown that cannabinoids might have a neuroprotective action. We investigated whether oral dronabinol (Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol) might slow the course of progressive multiple sclerosis. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we recruited patients aged 18-65 years with primary or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis from 27 UK neurology or rehabilitation departments. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dronabinol or placebo for 36 months; randomisation was by stochastic minimisation, using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, balanced according to expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score, centre, and disease type. Maximum dose was 28 mg per day, titrated against bodyweight and adverse effects. Primary outcomes were EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progression of ≥1 point from a baseline score of 4·0-5·0 or ≥0·5 points from a baseline score of ≥5·5, confirmed after 6 months) and change from baseline in the physical impact subscale of the 29-item multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29-PHYS). All patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCTN 62942668). FINDINGS: Of the 498 patients randomly assigned to a treatment group, 329 received at least one dose of dronabinol and 164 received at least one dose of placebo (five did not receive the allocated intervention). 145 patients in the dronabinol group had EDSS score progression (0·24 first progression events per patient-year; crude rate) compared with 73 in the placebo group (0·23 first progression events per patient-year; crude rate); HR for prespecified primary analysis was 0·92 (95% CI 0·68-1·23; p=0·57). Mean yearly change in MSIS-29-PHYS score was 0·62 points (SD 3·29) in the dronabinol group versus 1·03 points (3·74) in the placebo group. Primary analysis with a multilevel model gave an estimated between-group difference (dronabinol-placebo) of -0·9 points (95% CI -2·0 to 0·2). We noted no serious safety concerns (114 [35%] patients in the dronabinol group had at least one serious adverse event, compared with 46 [28%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Our results show that dronabinol has no overall effect on the progression of multiple sclerosis in the progressive phase. The findings have implications for the design of future studies of progressive multiple sclerosis, because lower than expected progression rates might have affected our ability to detect clinical change. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Multiple Sclerosis Society, and Multiple Sclerosis Trust.

A systematic review of biomarkers for disease progression in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Using surrogate biomarkers for disease progression as endpoints in neuroprotective clinical trials may help differentiate symptomatic effects of potential neuroprotective agents from true disease-modifying effects. A systematic review was undertaken to determine what biomarkers for disease progression in Parkinson's disease (PD) exist. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE (1950-2010) were searched using five search strategies. Abstracts were assessed to identify papers meriting review in full. Studies of participants with idiopathic PD diagnosed by formal criteria or clearly described clinical means were included. We made no restriction on age, disease duration, drug treatment, or study design. We included studies which attempted to draw associations between any tests used to investigate disease progression and any clinical measures of disease progression. The electronic search was validated by hand-searching the two journals from which most included articles came. RESULTS: 183 studies were included: 163 (89%) cross-sectional, 20 (11%) longitudinal. The electronic search strategy had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI 51.1-86.0) and a specificity of 97.1% (95% CI 96.5-97.7). In longitudinal studies median follow-up was 2.0 years (IQR 1.1-3.5). Included studies were generally poor quality--cross-sectional with small numbers of participants, applying excessive inclusion/exclusion criteria, with flawed methodologies and simplistic statistical analyses. CONCLUSION: We found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any biomarker for disease progression in PD clinical trials, which may simply reflect the poor quality of research in this area. We therefore present a provisional 'roadmap' for conducting future disease progression biomarker studies, and recommend new quality criteria by which future studies may be judged.

Achieving valid patient-reported outcomes measurement: a lesson from fatigue in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The increasing influence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement instruments indicates their scrutiny has never been more crucial. Above all, PRO instruments should be valid: shown to assess what they purport to assess. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a widely used fatigue PRO instrument, highlight key issues in understanding PRO instrument validity, demonstrate limitations of those approaches and justify notable changes in the validation process. METHODS: A two-phase evaluation of the 40-item Fatigue Impact scale (FIS): a qualitative evaluation of content and face validity using expert opinion (n=30) and a modified Delphi technique; a quantitative psychometric evaluation of internal and external construct validity of data from 333 people with multiple sclerosis using traditional and modern methods. RESULTS: Qualitative evaluation did not support content or face validity of the FIS. Expert opinion agreed with the subscale placement of 23 items (58%), and classified all 40 items as being non-specific to fatigue impact. Nevertheless, standard quantitative psychometric evaluations implied, largely, FIS subscales were reliable and valid. CONCLUSIONS: Standard quantitative 'psychometric' evaluations of PRO instrument validity can be misleading. Evaluation of existing PRO instruments requires both qualitative and statistical methods. Development of new PRO instruments requires stronger conceptual underpinning, clearer definitions of the substantive variables for measurement and hypothesis-testing experimental designs.