Search

Background: Pediatric investigation plans (PIPs) describe how adult drugs can be studied in children. In 2015, PIPs for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) became mandatory for European marketing-authorization of adult treatments, unless a waiver is granted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Objective: To assess the feasibility of clinical studies on the effect of therapy in children (<18 years) with ALS in Europe. Methods: The EMA database was searched for submitted PIPs in ALS. A questionnaire was sent to 58 European ALS centers to collect the prevalence of pediatric ALS during the past ten years, the recruitment potential for future pediatric trials, and opinions of ALS experts concerning a waiver for ALS. Results: Four PIPs were identified; two were waived and two are planned for the future. In total, 49 (84.5%) centers responded to the questionnaire. The diagnosis of 44,858 patients with ALS was reported by 46 sites; 39 of the patients had an onset < 18 years (prevalence of 0.008 cases per 100,000 or 0.087% of all diagnosed patients). The estimated recruitment potential (47 sites) was 26 pediatric patients within five years. A majority of ALS experts (75.5%) recommend a waiver should apply for ALS due to the low prevalence of pediatric ALS. Conclusions: ALS with an onset before 18 years is extremely rare and may be a distinct entity from adult ALS. Conducting studies on the effect of disease-modifying therapy in pediatric ALS may involve lengthy recruitment periods, high costs, ethical/legal implications, challenges in trial design and limited information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]