Responder Definition of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Physical Impact Subscale for Patients with Physical Worsening

Overview

Journal Mult Scler

Publisher Sage Publications

Specialty Neurology

Date 2014 Apr 18

PMID 24740371

Citations 30

Authors

Glenn A Phillips

Kathleen W Wyrwich

Shien Guo

Rossella Medori

Arman Altincatal

Linda Wagner

Jacob Elkins

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The 29-item Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) was developed to examine the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on physical and psychological functioning from a patient's perspective.

Objective: To determine the responder definition (RD) of the MSIS-29 physical impact subscale (PHYS) in a group of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) participating in a clinical trial.

Methods: Data from the SELECT trial comparing daclizumab high-yield process with placebo in patients with RRMS were used. Physical function was evaluated in SELECT using three patient-reported outcomes measures and the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Anchor- and distribution-based methods were used to identify an RD for the MSIS-29.

Results: Results across the anchor-based approach suggested MSIS-29 PHYS RD values of 6.91 (mean), 7.14 (median) and 7.50 (mode). Distribution-based RD estimates ranged from 6.24 to 10.40. An RD of 7.50 was selected as the most appropriate threshold for physical worsening based on corresponding changes in the EDSS (primary anchor of interest).

Conclusion: These findings indicate that a ≥7.50 point worsening on the MSIS-29 PHYS is a reasonable and practical threshold for identifying patients with RRMS who have experienced a clinically significant change in the physical impact of MS.

Citing Articles

Smoking and Obesity Interact to Adversely Affect Disease Progression and Cognitive Performance in Multiple Sclerosis.

Eva J, Olsson T, Alfredsson L, Hedstrom A Eur J Neurol. 2025; 32(2):e70058.

PMID: 39905709 PMC: 11794246. DOI: 10.1111/ene.70058.

Improvements in quality of life of patients with multiple sclerosis receiving alemtuzumab in clinical practice: the LEMVIDA study.

Meca-Lallana J, Eichau S, Casanova B, Rodriguez E, Pato A, Forner M J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):148.

PMID: 39692844 PMC: 11655941. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00822-9.

Obesity Affects Disease Activity and Progression, Cognitive Functioning, and Quality of Life in People With Multiple Sclerosis.

Wu J, Alfredsson L, Olsson T, Hillert J, Hedstrom A Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2024; 12(1):e200334.

PMID: 39536290 PMC: 11563565. DOI: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000200334.

Lifestyle changes and patient-reported outcomes over five years in a sample of people with multiple sclerosis after a single multimodal intensive lifestyle education workshop.

Reece J, Jelinek G, Milanzi E, Simpson-Yap S, Neate S, Taylor K Neurol Sci. 2024; 46(2):835-844.

PMID: 39432178 PMC: 11772461. DOI: 10.1007/s10072-024-07811-2.

Effects of a Digital Care Pathway for Multiple Sclerosis: Observational Study.

Vesinurm M, Maunula A, Olli P, Lillrank P, Ijas P, Torkki P JMIR Hum Factors. 2024; 11():e51872.

PMID: 39110966 PMC: 11339567. DOI: 10.2196/51872.

References

McGuigan C, Hutchinson M . The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) is a reliable and sensitive measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004; 75(2):266-9. PMC: 1738881. View

Wyrwich K, Tierney W, Wolinsky F . Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52(9):861-73. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00071-2. View

Ravnborg M, Blinkenberg M, Sellebjerg F, Ballegaard M, Larsen S, Soelberg Sorensen P . Responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis Impairment Scale in comparison with the Expanded Disability Status Scale. Mult Scler. 2005; 11(1):81-4. DOI: 10.1191/1352458505ms1120oa. View

Hobart J, Riazi A, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson A . Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8(9):iii, 1-48. DOI: 10.3310/hta8090. View

Hobart J, Riazi A, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson A . How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005; 76(11):1539-43. PMC: 1739386. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2005.064584. View

Gold R, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, Havrdova E, Montalban X, Radue E . Daclizumab high-yield process in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (SELECT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9884):2167-75. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62190-4. View

Costelloe L, ORourke K, Kearney H, McGuigan C, Gribbin L, Duggan M . The patient knows best: significant change in the physical component of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007; 78(8):841-4. PMC: 2117755. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.105759. View

Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Riazi A, Thompson A . The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001; 124(Pt 5):962-73. DOI: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962. View

Giordano A, Pucci E, Naldi P, Mendozzi L, Milanese C, Tronci F . Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in multiple sclerosis relapses: the REMS study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2009; 80(9):1023-8. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2008.171181. View

10.

Costelloe L, ORourke K, McGuigan C, Walsh C, Tubridy N, Hutchinson M . The longitudinal relationship between the patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale and the clinician-assessed Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite. Mult Scler. 2007; 14(2):255-8. DOI: 10.1177/1352458507081274. View

11.

Riazi A, Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson A . Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler. 2003; 9(4):411-9. DOI: 10.1191/1352458503ms929oa. View

12.

Goldman M, Motl R, Rudick R . Possible clinical outcome measures for clinical trials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2010; 3(4):229-39. PMC: 3002657. DOI: 10.1177/1756285610374117. View

13.

Norman G, Sloan J, Wyrwich K . Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003; 41(5):582-92. DOI: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C. View

14.

Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012. View

15.

Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller S . A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996; 34(3):220-33. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. View

16.

Robinson Jr D, Zhao N, Gathany T, Kim L, Cella D, Revicki D . Health perceptions and clinical characteristics of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients: baseline data from an international clinical trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009; 25(5):1121-30. DOI: 10.1185/03007990902797675. View

17.

Walters S, Brazier J . Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14(6):1523-32. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. View

18.

Wyrwich K, Norquist J, Lenderking W, Acaster S . Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2012; 22(3):475-83. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-012-0175-x. View

19.

Gray O, McDonnell G, Hawkins S . Tried and tested: the psychometric properties of the multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) in a population-based study. Mult Scler. 2008; 15(1):75-80. DOI: 10.1177/1352458508096872. View

20.

Kurtzke J . Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983; 33(11):1444-52. DOI: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. View