The Challenge of Designing Stroke Trials That Change Practice: MCID vs. Sample Size and Pragmatism

Bridging the gap between statistical significance and clinical relevance: A systematic review of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds of scales reported in movement disorders research

Background

Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. Using validated MCID thresholds for outcomes powers trials adequately to detect meaningful treatment effects, aids in their interpretation and guides development of new outcome measures.

Objectives

To provide a comprehensive summary of MCID thresholds of various symptom severity scales reported in movement disorder.

Methods

We conducted systematic review of the literature and included studies of one or more movement disorders, and reporting MCID scales.

Results

2763 reports were screened. Final review included 32 studies. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment showed most studies were of good quality. Most commonly evaluated scale was Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (11 out of 32). Four studies assessing MDS-UPDRS had assessed its different sub-parts, reporting a change of 2.64,3.05,3.25 and 0.9 points to detect clinically meaningful improvement and 2.45,2.51,4.63 and 0.8 points to detect clinically meaningful worsening, for the Part I, II, III and IV, respectively. For Parts II + III, I + II + III and I + II + III + IV, MCID thresholds reported for clinically meaningful improvement were 5.73, 4.9, 6.7 and 7.1 points respectively; while those for clinically meaningful worsening were 4.7, 4.2, 5.2 and 6.3 points, respectively. MCID thresholds reported for other scales included Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSRS), and Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Scale (BFMD).

Conclusion

This review summarizes all the MCID thresholds currently reported in Movement disorders research and provides a comprehensive resource for future trials, highlighting the need for standardized and validated MCID scales in movement disorder research.

Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Trials: Cutting, Sliding, or Keeping mRS Scores and WFNS Grades

Rigorous evidence generation with randomized controlled trials has lagged for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) compared with other forms of acute stroke. Besides its lower incidence compared with other stroke subtypes, the presentation and outcome of patients with SAH also differ. This must be considered and adjusted for in designing pivotal randomized controlled trials of patients with SAH. Here, we show the effect of the unique expected distribution of the SAH severity at presentation (World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade) on the outcome most used in pivotal stroke randomized controlled trials (modified Rankin Scale) and, consequently, on the sample size. Furthermore, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different options to analyze the outcome and control the expected distribution of the World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grades in addition to showing their effects on the sample size. Finally, we offer methods that investigators can adapt to more precisely understand the effect of common modified Rankin Scale analysis methods and trial eligibility pertaining to the World Federation of Neurological Surgeons grade in designing their large-scale SAH randomized controlled trials.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient's perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient's perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

Clinically important effect sizes for clinical trials using infarct growth reduction as the primary outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Infarct growth on multimodal imaging is a common lead outcome in phase 2 proof-of-concept and dose-optimization neuroprotective agent stroke trials. However, the effect size in infarct growth reduction that correlates with clinically meaningful differences in clinical global disability outcomes has not been well delineated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified all endovascular thrombectomy randomized trials reporting magnitude of treatment effect on both infarct growth reduction and increase in functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2). Data aggregation determined the size of infarct growth reductions salient to four types of clinically meaningful effect sizes of increase in functional independence: (1) the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)-outcome specific; (2) the MCID-practice changing; (3) the realistic target difference; and (4) the reasonable comparability effect size.

RESULTS

A systematic search identified four trials enrolling 612 imaged participants. Across the trials, the amount of functional independence (mRS 0-2) increase associated with each 1 mL reduction in infarct growth was mean 2.3±0.6%. An infarct growth reduction of 0.57 mL correlated with the mRS 0-2 increase MCID of 1.3%. Infarct growth reductions of 2.27 mL, 4.35 mL, and 6.53 mL correlated with realistic effect and reasonable comparability effects sizes of mRS 0-2 increases of 5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In formal meta-analysis of randomized treatment trials, every 1 mL reduction in infarct growth was associated with a 2.3% increase in functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 3 months. This conversion factor can inform selection of infarct growth effect size targets for phase 2 trials of neuroprotective agents.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Neurological Conditions: Review of Concept and Methods

The concept of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) emerged from the recognition that statistical significance alone is not enough to determine the clinical relevance of treatment effects in clinical research. In many cases, statistically significant changes in outcomes may not be meaningful to patients or may not result in any tangible improvements in their health. This has led to a growing emphasis on the importance of measuring patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials and other research studies, in order to capture the patient perspective on treatment effectiveness. MCID is defined as the smallest change in scores that is considered meaningful or important to patients. MCID is particularly important in fields such as neurology, where many of the outcomes of interest are subjective or based on patient-reported symptoms. This review discusses the challenges associated with interpreting outcomes of clinical trials based solely on statistical significance, highlighting the importance of considering clinical relevance and patient perception of change. There are two main approaches to estimating MCID: anchor-based and distribution-based. Anchor-based approaches compare change scores using an external anchor, while distribution-based approaches estimate MCID values based on statistical characteristics of scores within a sample. MCID is dynamic and context-specific, and there is no single 'gold standard' method for estimating it. A range of MCID thresholds should be defined using multiple methods for a disease under targeted intervention, rather than relying on a single absolute value. The use of MCID thresholds can be an important tool for researchers, neurophysicians and patients in evaluating the effectiveness of treatments and interventions, and in making informed decisions about care.