Feasibility assessment of using the MiToS staging system for conducting economic evaluation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the feasibility of using the Milano-Torino staging (MiToS) system for conducting economic evaluation to measure health outcomes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed using the MiToS system and evaluated with a hypothetical treatment versus standard of care. Health utilities and transition probabilities were derived from the literature. Four-time horizons (1, 5, 10, and 20 years) were examined. Treatment effects of 20-35% relative risk reduction (RRR) of progressing to the next MiToS stage were assessed. Three patient distribution scenarios were tested: (1) all patients began in stage 0; (2) patient distribution based on real-world TONiC study; (3) distribution based on the PRO-ACT database. Health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], life-years [LYs]) were reported with a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: A time horizon of 10 years fully captured treatment benefits: incremental QALYs were 0.28-0.60, 0.21-0.45, and 0.26-0.55 for scenarios 1-3, respectively; incremental LYs were 0.56-1.17, 0.46-0.97, and 0.53-1.11, respectively. CONCLUSION: MiToS-based staging can be used for conducting economic analyses in ALS. Estimated incremental QALY and LY gains were meaningful within the context of ALS, for hypothetical treatments with RRR of 20-35%.

Time from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis symptom onset to key disease milestones: analysis of data from a multinational cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the average time from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) symptom onset to 11 pre-defined milestones, overall and according to ALS progression rate and geographic location. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi Real World ALS Disease-Specific ProgrammeTM, a point-in-time survey of neurologists caring for people living with ALS (pALS) conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States from 2020-2021. ALS progression rate was calculated using time since symptom onset and ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised score. RESULTS: Survey results were available for N = 1003 pALS (progression rate for N = 867). Mean time from symptom onset was 3.8 months to first consultation, 8.0 months to diagnosis, 16.2 months to employment change (part-time/sick leave/retirement/unemployment), 17.5 months to use of a walking aid, 18.5 months to first occurrence of caregiver support, 22.8 months to use of a wheelchair, 24.6 months to use of a communication aid, 27.3 months to use of a respiratory aid, 28.6 months to use of gastrostomy feeding, 29.7 months to use of eye gaze technology and 30.3 months to entering a care facility. Multivariate analysis indicated significant effects of fast (versus slow) progression rate on time to reach all 11 milestones, as well as US (versus European) location, age, body mass index and bulbar onset (versus other) on time to reach milestones. CONCLUSIONS: pALS rapidly reached clinical and disease-related milestones within 30 months from symptom onset. Milestones were reached significantly faster by pALS with fast versus slow progression. Geographic differences were observed.

Health utilities and quality-adjusted life years for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis receiving reldesemtiv or placebo in FORTITUDE-ALS.

AIMS: To estimate the health utilities and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) receiving reldesemtiv versus placebo in FORTITUDE-ALS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from FORTITUDE-ALS (NCT03160898). This Phase IIb, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week trial evaluated reldesemtiv in patients with ALS. Health utilities from the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) were estimated using ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) scores collected during the trial. QALYs were estimated using the area under the curve method. RESULTS: The full analysis set consisted of 456 patients (reldesemtiv n = 342, placebo n = 114), who received at least one dose of the double-blind study drug, and had ALSFRS-R assessed at baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. The difference in EQ-5D-5L utility least-squares (LS) mean change from baseline to week 12 for reldesemtiv versus placebo, adjusted for baseline values, was statistically significant (0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01, 0.05; p = .0008). The incremental QALY of reldesemtiv versus placebo adjusted for baseline utility values showed a modest, but statistically significant, difference (0.004, 95% CI: 0.001, 0.007; p = .0058). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis of FORTITUDE-ALS suggests that reldesemtiv showed a modest but significant benefit in health utilities and QALYs compared with placebo. Future long-term studies that include direct collection of EQ-5D-5L data will be needed to confirm our findings. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03160898.

MiToS and King's staging as clinical outcome measures in ALS: a retrospective analysis of the FORTITUDE-ALS trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the Milano-Torino staging (MiToS) and King's staging systems as potential outcome measures for clinical trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by assessing these outcomes in FORTITUDE-ALS. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 2b FORTITUDE-ALS trial (NCT03160898), a double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of reldesemtiv in patients with ALS. The treatment period was 12 weeks, with a follow-up assessment at week 16. Patients were retrospectively classified into MiToS and King's stages. Outcomes were the mean time maintaining baseline stage and risk of progression from the baseline stage to a later stage. RESULTS: The full analysis set consisted of 456 patients randomized 3:1 (reldesemtiv n = 342, placebo n = 114) who received at least one dose of double-blind study drug and had at least one post-baseline assessment. At baseline, MiToS and King's stages were balanced between the reldesemtiv and placebo groups: >99% of patients were in MiToS stage 0 or 1 and King's stage 1, 2 or 3. Time of maintaining the baseline stage was similar in both groups, for each staging system. The two staging systems exhibited considerably disparate results for risk of progression from baseline to a later stage: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38, 0.99) for MiToS and HR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.63, 1.44) for King's. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis showed the feasibility of MiToS and King's staging as potential outcome measures in ALS. Additional studies of these staging systems are needed to further explore their utility in ALS clinical trials.

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy versus ventriculoperitoneal shunt in pediatric and adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Treatment options for hydrocephalus include endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) and ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS). Some ambiguity remains regarding indications, safety, and efficacy for these procedures in different clinical scenarios. The objective of the present study was to pool the available evidence to compare outcomes among patients with hydrocephalus undergoing ETV versus VPS. A systematic search of the literature was conducted via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through 11/29/2018 to identify studies evaluating failure and complication rates, following ETV or VPS. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random effects. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochrane Q test and the I2 value. Heterogeneity sources were explored through subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Twenty-three studies (five randomized control trials (RCTs) and 18 observational studies) were meta-analyzed. Comparing ETV to VPS, failure rate was not statistically significantly different with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 1.48, 95%CI (0.85, 2.59) for RCTs and 1.17 (0.89, 1.53) for cohort studies; P-interaction: 0.44. Complication rates were not statistically significantly different between ETV and VPS in RCTs (RR: 1.34, 95%CI: 0.50, 3.59) but were statistically significant for prospective cohort studies (RR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.30, 0.78); P-interaction: 0.07. Length of hospital stay was no different, when comparing ETV and VPS. These results remained unchanged when stratifying by intervention type and when regressing on age when possible. No significant differences in failure rate were observed between ETV and VPS. ETV was found to have lower complication rates than VPS in prospective cohort studies but not in RCTs. Further research is needed to identify the specific patient populations who may be better suited for one intervention versus another.