The role of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure in multiple sclerosis

被引:83
|
作者
McFarland, HF [1 ]
Barkhof, F
Antel, J
Miller, DH
机构
[1] NINCDS, NIH, Neuroimmunol Branch, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, MD MR Ctr, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Montreal Neurol Inst, Dept Neurol, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[4] NMR Res Unit, Inst Neurol, London, England
关键词
mri; outcome measure;
D O I
10.1191/1352458502ms767xx
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
The need for more specific and more sensitive outcome measures for use in testing new therapies in multiple sclerosis (MS) is generally accepted. This need has been accentuated by the realization that the ability to conduct large placebo-con trolled trials will be limited in the future. From the first use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study MS, the ability of this imaging technique to identify areas of the central nervous system damage by the disease process in MS has been impressive. Thus, the possibility that MRI could serve as a surrogate outcome measure in clinical trials in MS has been attractive. The use of MRI as a surrogate outcome measure has been examined by an international group of investigators with expertise in clinical aspects of MS, the use of MRI in MS, and in experimental therapeutics. The group agreed that MRI does not represent a validated surrogate in any clinical form of MS. It was also agreed, however, that MRI does provide a reflection of the underlying pathology in the disease, but no single MRI measurement in isolation was seen as sufficient to monitor disease, The use for multiple imaging techniques, especially new, emerging techniques that may better reflect the underlying pathology, was seen as particularly important in monitoring studies of patients with either secondary or primary progressive MS. The choice of MRI techniques used to monitor new therapies needs to be consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the new therapy and phase of the disease. It was also noted, however, that additional validation is required for nonconventional imaging techniques. Finally, the participants noted that clinical trials using MRI as a primary outcome measure may fail to fully identify the effects of the therapy on clinical measures and that the risk and cost-benefit ratio of the treatment might be unresolved. Thus, before MRI is used as a primary outcome measure, new approaches to trial design must be given careful consideration.
引用
收藏
页码:40 / 51
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS MRI-the perfect surrogate marker for multiple sclerosis?
    Barkhof, Frederik
    Filippi, Massimo
    NATURE REVIEWS NEUROLOGY, 2009, 5 (04) : 182 - 183
  • [3] MRI—the perfect surrogate marker for multiple sclerosis?
    Frederik Barkhof
    Massimo Filippi
    Nature Reviews Neurology, 2009, 5 : 182 - 183
  • [4] MRI lesions: a surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis?
    Rudick, Richard A.
    Cutter, Gary
    LANCET NEUROLOGY, 2013, 12 (07): : 628 - 630
  • [5] Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Multiple Sclerosis
    Daniel Ontaneda
    Robert J. Fox
    Neurotherapeutics, 2017, 14 : 24 - 34
  • [6] Imaging as an Outcome Measure in Multiple Sclerosis
    Ontaneda, Daniel
    Fox, Robert J.
    NEUROTHERAPEUTICS, 2017, 14 (01) : 24 - 34
  • [7] Brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis - Role as a surrogate measure of disease progression
    Simon, JH
    CNS DRUGS, 2001, 15 (06) : 427 - 436
  • [8] Longitudinal diffusion MRI as surrogate outcome measure for myelopathy in adrenoleukodystrophy
    Huffnagel, Irene C.
    van Ballegoij, Wouter J. C.
    Vos, Johanna M. B. W.
    Kemp, Stephan
    Caan, Matthan W. A.
    Engelen, Marc
    NEUROLOGY, 2019, 93 (23) : E2133 - E2143
  • [9] A Bayesian hierarchical surrogate outcome model for multiple sclerosis
    Pozzi, Luca
    Schmidli, Heinz
    Ohlssen, David I.
    PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2016, 15 (04) : 341 - 348
  • [10] The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: a new clinical outcome measure for multiple sclerosis
    Rudick, RA
    Cutter, G
    Reinold, S
    MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, 2002, 8 (05): : 359 - 365