MR spectroscopy (MRS) and magnetisation transfer imaging (MTI), lesion load and clinical scores in early relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a combined cross-sectional and longitudinal study

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (8) ◽  
pp. 2066-2074 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bellmann-Strobl ◽  
H. Stiepani ◽  
J. Wuerfel ◽  
G. Bohner ◽  
F. Paul ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth N York ◽  
Michael J Thrippleton ◽  
Rozanna Meijboom ◽  
David P.J. Hunt ◽  
Adam D Waldman

Myelin-sensitive MRI such as magnetisation transfer imaging has been widely used in the clinical context of multiple sclerosis. The influence of methodology and differences in disease subtype on imaging findings is, however, not well established. Here, we aim to review systematically the use of quantitative magnetisation transfer imaging in the brain in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. We examine how methodological differences, disease effects and their interaction influence magnetisation transfer imaging measures. Articles published before 06/01/2021 were retrieved from online databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science) with search terms including "magnetisation transfer" and "brain" for systematic review. Only studies which used human in vivo quantitative magnetisation transfer imaging in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (with or without healthy controls) were included. Data including sample size, magnetic field strength, MRI acquisition protocol parameters, treatments and clinical findings were extracted. Where possible, effect sizes were calculated for meta-analyses to determine magnetisation transfer (1) differences between patients and healthy controls; (2) longitudinal change; and, (3) relationships with clinical disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eighty-six studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. MRI acquisition parameters varied widely, and were also underreported. The majority of studies examined MTR (magnetisation transfer ratio) in white matter, but magnetisation transfer metrics, brain regions and results were heterogeneous. Analysis demonstrated a risk of bias due to selective reporting and small sample sizes. A random-effects meta-analysis revealed MTR was 1.1 percent units [95% CI -1.47pu to -0.73pu] lower in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis than healthy controls (z-value: -6.04, p<0.001, n=23). Linear mixed-model analysis did not show a significant longitudinal change in MTR across all brain regions (β=-0.14 [-0.9 to 0.61], t-value=-0.38, p=0.71, n=13) or normal-appearing white matter alone (β=-0.082 [-0.13 to -0.29], t-value=0.78, p=0.44, n=7). There was a significant negative association between MTR and clinical disability, as assessed by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (r=-0.30 [95% CI -0.48 to -0.08]; z-value=-2.91, p=0.01, n=8). Evidence suggests that magnetisation transfer imaging is sensitive to pathological changes in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, although the effect of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis on magnetisation transfer metrics in different brain tissue types was small in comparison to the inter-study variability. Recommended improvements include: the use of techniques such as MTsat (magnetisation transfer saturation) or ihMTR (inhomogeneous MTR) which provide more robust and specific microstructural measures within clinically feasible acquisition times; detailed methodological reporting standards; and larger, demographically diverse cohorts for comparison, including healthy controls.


Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012690
Author(s):  
Marcus W. Koch ◽  
Jop P. Mostert ◽  
Jerry S. Wolinsky ◽  
Fred D. Lublin ◽  
Bernard Uitdehaag ◽  
...  

Background:Clinical trials in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) usually use the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) as their primary disability outcome measure, while the more recently developed outcomes timed 25 foot walk (T25FW) and nine hole peg test (NHPT) may be more useful and patient-relevant.Objective:To compare the EDSS to the T25FW and NHPT in a large RRMS randomized controlled trial (RCT) dataset.Methods:We used the dataset from CombiRx (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00211887), a large phase 3 RCT, to compare the EDSS to the alternative outcomes T25FW and NHPT. We investigated disability worsening versus similarly defined improvement, unconfirmed versus confirmed and sustained disability change, and the presentation methods cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival curves versus cross-sectional disability worsening.Results:CombiRx included 1,008 participants. A comparison of confirmed versus sustained worsening events showed that throughout the trial, there were substantially fewer sustained than confirmed events, with a positive predictive value of confirmed for sustained worsening at 24 months of 0.73 for the EDSS, 0.73 for the T25FW, and 0.8 for the NHPT. More concerning was the finding that worsening on the EDSS occurred as frequently as similarly defined improvement throughout the three years of follow up, and that improvement rates increased in parallel with worsening rates. The T25FW showed low improvement rates of below 10% throughout the trial. We also found that Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the standard presentation and analysis method in modern RRMS trials, yields exaggerated estimates of disability worsening. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the proportion of patients with worsening events steadily increases, until it reaches several fold the number of events seen with more conservative analysis methods. For 3 month CDW at 36 months the ‘Kaplan-Meier’ method yields 2.6 fold higher estimates for the EDSS, 2.9 fold higher estimates for the T25FW and 5.1 fold higher estimates for the NHPT compared to a more conservative presentation of the same data.Discussion:Our analyses raise concerns about using the EDSS as the standard disability outcome in RRMS trials, and suggest that the T25FW may be a more useful measure. These findings are relevant for the design and critical appraisal of RCTs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Simon Stein ◽  
Gregory John Ward ◽  
Helmut Butzkueven ◽  
Trevor John Kilpatrick ◽  
Leonard Charles Harrison

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document