Background and ObjectivesCurrent scales used in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) attempt to summarize different functional domains or "dimensions" into 1 overall score, which may not accurately characterize the individual patient's disease severity or prognosis. The use of composite score risks declaring treatments ineffective if not all dimensions of ALS disease progression are affected equally. We aimed to develop the ALS Impairment Multidomain Scale (AIMS) to comprehensively characterize disease progression and increase the likelihood of identifying effective treatments.MethodsThe Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and a preliminary questionnaire, based on literature review and patient input, were completed online by patients from the Netherlands ALS registry at bimonthly intervals over a period of 12 months. A 2-week test-retest, factor analysis, Rasch analysis, and a signal-to-noise optimization strategy were performed to create a multidomain scale. Reliability, longitudinal decline, and associations with survival were evaluated. The sample size required to detect a 35% reduction in progression rate over 6 or 12 months was assessed for a clinical trial that defines the ALSFRS-R or AIMS subscales as a primary endpoint family.ResultsThe preliminary questionnaire, consisting of 110 questions, was completed by 367 patients. Three unidimensional subscales were identified, and a multidomain scale was constructed with 7 bulbar, 11 motor, and 5 respiratory questions. Subscales fulfilled Rasch model requirements, with excellent test-retest reliability of 0.91-0.94 and a strong relationship with survival (p < 0.001). Compared with the ALSFRS-R, signal-to-noise ratios were higher as patients declined more uniformly per subscale. Consequently, the estimated sample size reductions achieved with the AIMS compared with those achieved with the ALSFRS-R were 16.3% and 25.9% for 6-month and 12-month clinical trials, respectively.DiscussionWe developed the AIMS, consisting of unidimensional bulbar, motor, and respiratory subscales, which may characterize disease severity better than a total score. AIMS subscales have high test-retest reliability, are optimized to measure disease progression, and are strongly related to survival time. The AIMS can be easily administered and may increase the likelihood of identifying effective treatments in ALS clinical trials.

Objective: Uniform data collection is fundamental for multicentre clinical trials. We aim to determine the variability, between ALS trial centers, in the prevalence of unexpected or implausible improvements in the revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) score, and its associations with individual patient and item characteristics.Methods: We used data from two multicentre studies to estimate the prevalence of an unexpected increase or implausible improvement in the ALSFRS-R score, defined as an increase of 5 points or more between two consecutive, monthly visits. For each patient with a 5-point or more increase, we evaluated the individual contribution of each ALSFRS-R item.Results: Longitudinal ALSFRS-R scores, originating from 114 trial centers enrolling a total of 1,240 patients, were analyzed. A 5-point or more increase in ALSFRS-R total score was found in 151 (12.2%) patients, with prevalence per study center ranging from 0% to 83%. Bulbar onset, faster disease progression at enrollment, and a lower ALSFRS-R score at baseline were associated with a sudden 5-point or more increase in the ALSFRS-R total score. ALSFRS-R items 2 (saliva), 9 (stairs), 10 (dyspnea), and 11 (orthopnea) were the primary drivers when a 5-point or more increase occurred.Conclusions: Sudden 5-point or more increases in ALSFRS-R total scores between two consecutive visits are relatively common. These sudden increases were not found to occur with equal frequency in trial centers; which underscores the need for amending existing standard operating procedures toward a universal version and monitoring of data quality during the study, in multicentre research.

BackgroundThe Gold Coast criteria (GCC) have been proposed as a means of selecting patients for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trials. We aimed to characterise disease progression according to the GCC.MethodsData from population-based ALS registries from the Netherlands and Belgium were analysed. The GCC additionally define ALS as lower motor neuron (LMN) dysfunction in ≥2 body regions without upper motor neuron dysfunction. Therefore, the revised El Escorial criteria (rEEC) were supplemented with a ‘Gold Coast ALS’ category for patients with only LMN dysfunction in ≥2 body regions. We assessed survival time, ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) progression rates and between-patient variability per diagnostic category.ResultsWe included 5957 ALS patients, of whom 600 (10.1%) fulfilled the GCC but not the rEEC, and 95 (1.6%) fulfilled only the rEEC. ALSFRS-R progression rates were similar for the rEEC (0.84 points/month) and GCC (0.81 points/month) with similar variability (standard deviation of 0.59 vs. 0.60) and median survival time (17.8 vs.18.7 months). Survival time and average progression rates varied (p<0.001) between categories. Per category, however, there was considerable between-patient variability with progression rates ranging from: −2.10 to −0.14 (definite), −1.94 to −0.06 (probable), −2.10 to −0.02 (probable laboratory supported), −1.79 to −0.02 (possible) and −1.31 to 0.08 (Gold Coast).ConclusionsThe GCC broaden the definition of ALS, allowing more patients to participate in trials, while minimally impacting population heterogeneity. Given the large variability per diagnostic category, selecting only specific categories for trials may not result in a more homogeneous study population.

OBJECTIVE:To assess time trends in motor neuron disease (MND) incidence, prevalence, and mortality and to investigate geographic clustering of MND cases in the Netherlands from 1998 to 2017, we analyzed data from the Netherlands Personal Records database, the Netherlands MND Center, and the Netherlands Patient Association of Neuromuscular Diseases.METHODS:In this prospective cohort study, Poisson regression was used to assess time trends in MND risk. We calculated age- and sex-standardized, observed, and expected cases for 1,694 areas. Bayesian smoothed risk mapping was used to investigate geographic MND risk.RESULTS:We identified 7,992 MND cases, reflecting an incidence of 2.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-2.67) per 100,000 person-years and a prevalence of 9.5 (95% CI 9.1-10.0) per 100,000 persons. Highest age-standardized prevalence and mortality rates occurred at a later age in men than in women (p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality rates increased by 53.2% from 2.57 per 100,000 person-years in 1998 to 3.86 per 100,000 person-years in 2017. After adjustment for age and sex, an increase in MND mortality rate of 14.1% (95% CI 5.7%-23.2%, p < 0.001) remained. MND relative risk ranged from 0.78 to 1.43 between geographic areas; multiple urban and rural high-risk areas were identified.CONCLUSIONS:We found a significant national increase in MND mortality from 1998 through 2017, explained only partly by an aging Dutch population, and a geographic variability in MND risk, suggesting a role for environmental or demographic risk factors.

Development of effective treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has been hampered by disease heterogeneity, a limited understanding of underlying pathophysiology, and methodologic design challenges. We have evaluated 2 major themes in the design of pivotal, phase 3 clinical trials for ALS—(1) patient selection and (2) analytical strategy—and discussed potential solutions with the European Medicines Agency. Several design considerations were assessed using data from 5 placebo-controlled clinical trials (n = 988), 4 population-based cohorts (n = 5,100), and 2,436 placebo-allocated patients from the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) database. The validity of each proposed design modification was confirmed by means of simulation and illustrated for a hypothetical setting. Compared to classical trial design, the proposed design modifications reduce the sample size by 30.5% and placebo exposure time by 35.4%. By making use of prognostic survival models, one creates a potential to include a larger proportion of the population and maximize generalizability. We propose a flexible design framework that naturally adapts the trial duration when inaccurate assumptions are made at the design stage, such as enrollment or survival rate. In case of futility, the follow-up time is shortened and patient exposure to ineffective treatments or placebo is minimized. For diseases such as ALS, optimizing the use of resources, widening eligibility criteria, and minimizing exposure to futile treatments and placebo is critical to the development of effective treatments. Our proposed design modifications could circumvent important pitfalls and may serve as a blueprint for future clinical trials in this population.

Clinical trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) aim to identify treatments that can slow functional decline or prolong survival time. In the absence of objective biomarkers, questionnaires, such as the ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS), are used to evaluate treatment effects in clinical trials.1 Although questionnaires are easy to administer and hold prognostic value, they may miss important treatment clues if questions are not selected appropriately. For example, the ALSFRS was originally designed as a 10-item functional score across bulbar, fine and gross motor and respiratory domains. The ALSFRS was revised in 1999 by adding two respiratory items.1 Whether this revision resulted in an improved endpoint is debatable, as the questionnaire’s construct validity may have worsened, resulting in weaker correlations with respiratory function and survival.1 2 Nevertheless, the ultimate, real-world application of the ALSFRS is to serve as efficacy endpoint. Solely assessing validity may not suffice to evaluate whether a revision, or new questionnaire, is more suitable as endpoint. We propose, therefore, to evaluate longitudinal biomarkers and questionnaires, not only in terms of validity, but also in terms of trial design. Ultimately, this strategy may aid the selection of optimal efficacy endpoints for ALS or other neurodegenerative disease clinical trials. ### Individual participant data We used 12-month data from PRO-ACT to compare the ALSFRS and the ALSFRS-Revised (ALSFRS-R). PRO-ACT contains anonymised data from 23 clinical trials, conducted since 1990.3 Only data from trials that included the ALSFRS-R were used. To make the PRO-ACT data set comparable to common trial populations, we excluded patients with a symptom duration >36 months, vital capacity <60% or who were over 80 years of age. ### Outcome measures ALSFRS and ALSFRS-R total scores were calculated as the sum …

Objective: The ALSFRS-R is limited by multidimensionality, which originates from the summation of various subscales. This prevents a direct comparison between patients with identical total scores. We aim to evaluate how multidimensionality affects the performance of the ALSFRS-R in clinical trials. Methods: We simulated clinical trial data with different treatment effects for the ALSFRS-R total score and its subscales (i.e. bulbar, fine motor, gross motor and respiratory). We considered scenarios where treatment reduced the rate of ALSFRS-R subscale decline either uniformly (i.e. all subscales respond identically to treatment) or non-uniformly (i.e. subscales respond differently to treatment). Two main analytical strategies were compared: (1) analyzing only the total score or (2) utilizing a subscale-based test (i.e. alternative strategy). For each analytical strategy, we calculated the empirical power and required sample size. Results: Both strategies are valid when there is no treatment benefit and provide adequate control of type 1 error. If all subscales respond identically to treatment, using the total score is the most powerful approach. As the differences in treatment responses between subscales increase, the more the total score becomes affected. For example, to detect a 40% reduction in the bulbar rate of decline with 80% power, the total score requires 1380 patients, whereas this is 336 when using the alternative strategy. Conclusions: Ignoring the multidimensional structure of the ALSFRS-R total score could have negative consequences for ALS clinical trials. We propose determining treatment benefit on a subscale level, prior to stating whether a treatment is generally effective.

Development of effective treatments for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has been hampered by disease heterogeneity, a limited understanding of underlying pathophysiology, and methodologic design challenges. We have evaluated 2 major themes in the design of pivotal, phase 3 clinical trials for ALS-(1) patient selection and (2) analytical strategy-and discussed potential solutions with the European Medicines Agency. Several design considerations were assessed using data from 5 placebo-controlled clinical trials (n = 988), 4 population-based cohorts (n = 5,100), and 2,436 placebo-allocated patients from the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) database. The validity of each proposed design modification was confirmed by means of simulation and illustrated for a hypothetical setting. Compared to classical trial design, the proposed design modifications reduce the sample size by 30.5% and placebo exposure time by 35.4%. By making use of prognostic survival models, one creates a potential to include a larger proportion of the population and maximize generalizability. We propose a flexible design framework that naturally adapts the trial duration when inaccurate assumptions are made at the design stage, such as enrollment or survival rate. In case of futility, the follow-up time is shortened and patient exposure to ineffective treatments or placebo is minimized. For diseases such as ALS, optimizing the use of resources, widening eligibility criteria, and minimizing exposure to futile treatments and placebo is critical to the development of effective treatments. Our proposed design modifications could circumvent important pitfalls and may serve as a blueprint for future clinical trials in this population.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease with a median survival of 3 years. Currently, riluzole is the only drug that can prolong the life expectancy of patients with ALS.1 In the original trial, riluzole prolonged median survival by approximately 3 months, although no effect on function was observed.1 Therefore, it is unknown whether the survival benefit of riluzole occurs at an early stage, late stage or is spread throughout the course of the disease. Interestingly, in a recent reanalysis of the riluzole trial only a late-stage effect of riluzole was found.2 The investigators noted, however, that the earliest stage could not be analysed because of inclusion criteria and that further studies are needed.2 The question, therefore, remains whether riluzole also prolongs the earliest disease stage. This information is vital as, from a patient’s perspective, prolonging the earliest disease stages, when disability is lowest and quality of life is highest, is most desirable. We aim, therefore, to determine the timing of benefit of riluzole in a large cohort of patients with ALS. ### Data We used the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trial database which contains data from 23 phase II/III clinical trials, including the riluzole trial.1 ### Staging systems Two staging algorithms in ALS, Milano-Torino (MITOS) and King’s staging, were used to estimate clinical stage from clinical trial data (ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised [ALSFRS-R] scores, weight and vital capacity measurements).2 3 There are five MITOS stages, based on autonomy loss in four key domains of the ALSFRS-R: walking/self-care, swallowing, communicating and breathing. …

BackgroundThe dramatic impact of hemosiderosis on survival in chronically transfused patients with hereditary anemia is well known. We evaluated whether patients receiving multiple red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are adequately screened for hemosiderosis.MethodsWe retrospectively assessed hemosiderosis screening and prevalence in adult patients that received over twenty RBC units in the University Medical Centre Utrecht from 2010 till 2015. Hemosiderosis was defined as ferritin 1000g/L. Adequate screening for chronically transfused patients was defined as any ferritin determined up to 3months before or any moment after the last transfusion, while for patients that received all transfusions within 3months (bulk transfusion), ferritin had to be determined after at least twenty transfusions.ResultsOf 471 patients, only 38.6% was adequately screened and hemosiderosis prevalence was 46.7%. Hemosiderosis prevalence was 47% in the chronic transfusion group and 12% in the bulk transfusion group. In patients transfused because of hematological malignancy or cardiothoracic surgery, respectively, 74% and 31% were adequately screened and hemosiderosis prevalence was 53% and 13%, respectively.ConclusionHemosiderosis screening in our routine practice is suboptimal. Hemosiderosis is not an exclusive complication of multiple transfusions in the hematology ward. We recommend screening for hemosiderosis in all patients receiving multiple transfusions.