This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kragt, J J Articles by Polman, C H Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kragt, J J Articles by Polman, C H Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Multiple Sclerosis Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How similar are commonly combined criteria for EDSS progression in multiple sclerosis?

Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, jj.kragt{at}vumc.nl

J M Nielsen

Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

F AH van der Linden

Department of Neurology, Department of Medical Psychology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

B MJ Uitdehaag

Department of Neurology, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

C H Polman

Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Introduction Measuring disease progression is an important aspect of multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. Commonly applied disability endpoints include time to clinically meaningful Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) change, or the number of patients in whom such a change has occurred. Typically, clinically meaningful EDSS change has been defined as a change of 1.0 point on Kurtzke’s EDSS in patients with an entry EDSS score of 5.5 or lower, or 0.5 point in patients with a higher EDSS score. Our goal was to evaluate whether these changes can be considered as similar. Therefore, we compared EDSS changes to corresponding changes in the Guy’s Neurological Disability Scale (GNDS), which is a measure of patient perceived disability, and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC), which is an examination-based quantitative scoring of neurological impairment.

Methods From a large longitudinal database, we selected two groups of patients with a clinically meaningful change in EDSS score according to the usual criteria: patients with EDSS change]/1.0 for baseline EDSS 5/5.5 and patients with EDSS change]/0.5 for baseline EDSS]/6.0. We compared changes in GNDS sum score and in MSFC score between both groups.

Results In the group with baseline EDSS]/6.0, GNDS and MSFC changes were higher than in patients with baseline EDSS 5/5.5. The difference in change was 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI): ^/ 0.35 to 2.36) for the GNDS and 0.412 (95% CI: 0.300-0.525) for the MSFC.

Conclusion Our results indicate that a 0.5 point EDSS change in patients with baseline EDSS ^/ 6.0 cannot be considered equal to a 1.0 point change in patients with baseline EDSS 5/5.5.

Key Words: clinical scale • EDSS • GNDS • MSFC • multiple sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 12, No. 6, 782-786 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1352458506070931


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Rudick, C. Polman, J. Cohen, M. Walton, A. Miller, C Confavreux, F. Lublin, M Hutchinson, P. O'Connor, S. Schwid, et al. Assessing disability progression with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Multiple Sclerosis, August 1, 2009; 15(8): 984 - 997. [Abstract] [PDF]