| Abstract: | BackgroundSo far, clinical studies in primary progressive MS (PPMS) have failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints. To some extent this might be attributable to the choice of assessments or to the selection of the study population.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify outcome influencing factors by analyzing the design and methods of previous randomized studies in PPMS patients without restriction to intervention or comparator.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and the COCHRANE Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception to February 2015). Keywords included PPMS, primary progressive multiple sclerosis and chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Randomized, controlled trials of at least one year’s duration were selected if they included only patients with PPMS or if they reported sufficient PPMS subgroup data. No restrictions with respect to intervention or comparator were applied. Study quality was assessed by a biometrics expert. Relevant baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted and compared.ResultsOf 52 PPMS studies identified, four were selected. Inclusion criteria were notably different among studies with respect to both the definition of PPMS and the requirements for the presence of disability progression at enrolment. Differences between the study populations included the baseline lesion load, pretreatment status and disease duration. The rate of disease progression may also be an important factor, as all but one of the studies included a large proportion of patients with a low progression rate. In addition, the endpoints specified could not detect progression adequately.ConclusionOptimal PPMS study methods involve appropriate patient selection, especially regarding the PPMS phenotype and progression rate. Functional composite endpoints might be more sensitive than single endpoints in capturing progression. |
