Assessing disability progression with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite

Abstract

Background

The initial Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) proposal was a three-part composite of quantitative measures of ambulation, upper extremity function, and cognitive function expressed as a single composite Z-score. However, the clinical meaning of an MSFC Z-score change is not obvious. This study instead used MSFC component data to define a patient-specific disease progression event.

Objective

Evaluate a new method for analyzing disability progression using the MSFC.

Methods

MSFC progression was defined as worsening from baseline on scores of at least one MSFC component by 20% (MSFC Progression-20) or 15% (MSFC Progression-15), sustained for ≥3 months. Progression rates were determined using data from natalizumab clinical studies (Natalizumab Safety and Efficacy in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [AFFIRM] and Safety and Efficacy of Natalizumab in Combination With Interferon Beta-1a in Patients With Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis [SENTINEL]). Correlations between MSFC progression and other clinical measures were determined, as was sensitivity to treatment effects.

Results

Substantial numbers of patients met MSFC progression criteria, with MSFC Progression-15 being more sensitive than MSFC Progression-20, at both 1 and 2 years. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 were related significantly to Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score change, relapse rate, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score change. MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 at 1 year were predictive of EDSS progression at 2 years. Both MSFC progression end points demonstrated treatment effects in AFFIRM, and results were replicated in SENTINEL.

Conclusion

MSFC Progression-20 and MSFC Progression-15 are sensitive measures of disability progression; correlate with EDSS, relapse rates, and SF-36 PCS; and are capable of demonstrating therapeutic effects in randomized, controlled clinical studies.

Keywords

clinical end points disability progression multiple sclerosis Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite natalizumab relapsing-remitting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1 Kurtzke JF . Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452.

2 The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group . Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1993; 43: 655–661.

3 Johnson KP Brooks BR Cohen JA . The Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1995; 45: 1268–1276.

4 Jacobs LD Cookfair DL Rudick RA . The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996; 39: 285–294.

5 PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon β-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon β-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1998; 352: 1498–1504.

6 Polman CH O’Connor PW Havrdova E . The AFFIRM Investigators. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 899–910.

7 Rudick RA Stuart WH Calabresi PA . The SENTINEL Investigators. Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 911–923.

8 Kragt JJ Nielsen JM van der Linden FAH Uitdehaag BM Polman CH . How similar are commonly combined criteria for EDSS progression in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2006; 12: 782–786.

9 Whitaker JN McFarland HF Rudge P Reingold SC . Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Mult Scler 1995; 1: 37–47.

10.

10 Rudick R Antel J Confavreux C . Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996; 40: 469–479.

11.

11 Rudick R Antel J Confavreux C . Recommendations from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 379–382.

12.

12 Cutter GR Baier ML Rudick RA . Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122: 871–882.

13.

13 Fischer JS Rudick RA Cutter GR Reingold SC . Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. National MS Society Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force. Mult Scler 1999; 5: 244–250.

14.

14 Cohen JA Fischer JS Bolibrush DM . Intrarater and interrater reliability of the MS functional composite outcome measure. Neurology 2000; 54: 802–806.

15.

15 Cohen JA Cutter GR Fischer JS . The IMPACT Investigators. Use of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite as an outcome measure in a phase 3 clinical trial. Arch Neurol 2001; 58: 961–967.

16.

16 Kalkers NF de Groot V Lazeron RHC . MS functional composite: relation to disease phenotype and disability strata. Neurology 2000; 54: 1233–1239.

17.

17 Miller DM Rudick RA Cutter G Baier M Fischer JS . Clinical significance of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: relationship to patient-reported quality of life. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 1319–1324.

18.

18 Rudick RA Cutter G Baier M . Use of the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite to predict disability in relapsing MS. Neurology 2001; 56: 1324–1330.

19.

19 Ozakbas S Cagiran I Ormeci B Idiman E . Correlations between multiple sclerosis functional composite, expanded disability status scale and health-related quality of life during and after treatment of relapses in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2004; 218: 3–7.

20.

20 Fisher E Rudick RA Cutter G . Relationship between brain atrophy and disability: an 8-year follow-up study of multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler 2000; 6: 373–377.

21.

21 Kalkers NF Bergers L de Groot V . Concurrent validity of the MS Functional Composite using MRI as a biological disease marker. Neurology 2001; 56: 215–219.

22.

22 Miller DM Cohen JA Kooijmans M . The IMPACT Investigators. Change in clinician-assessed measures of multiple sclerosis and subject-reported quality of life: results from the IMPACT study. Mult Scler 2006; 12: 180–186.

23.

23 Uitdehaag BMJ Adèr HJ Roosma TJA de Groot V Kalkers NF Polman CH . Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: impact of reference population and interpretation of changes. Mult Scler 2002; 8: 366–371.

24.

24 Fox RJ Lee J-C Rudick RA . Optimal reference population for the multiple sclerosis functional composite. Mult Scler 2007; 13: 909–914.

25.

25 Schwid SR Goodman AD McDermott MP Bever CF Cook SD . Quantitative functional measures in MS: what is a reliable change. Neurology 2002; 58: 1294–1296.

26.

26 Kaufman M Moyer D Norton J . The significant change for the Timed 25-Foot Walk in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2000; 6: 286–290.

27.

27 Hoogervorst EL Kalkers NF Cutter GR Uitdehaag BM Polman CH . The patient’s perception of a (reliable) change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler 2004; 10: 55–60.

28.

28 Kragt JJ van der Linden FA Nielsen JM Uitdehaag BM Polman CH . Clinical impact of 20% worsening on Timed 25-foot Walk and 9-Hole Peg Test in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2006; 12: 594–598.

29.

29 Solari A Radice D Manneschi L Motti L Montanari E . The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: different practice effects in the three test components. J Neurol Sci 2005; 228: 71–74.

30.

30 Sipe JC Knobler RL Braheny SL Rice GP Panitch HS Oldstone MB . A neurologic rating scale (NRS) for use in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1984; 34: 1368–1372.

31.

31 Balcer LJ Baier ML Cohen JA . Contrast letter acuity as a visual component for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Neurology 2003; 61: 1367–1373.