Contributions
Abstract: P387
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 8 Clinical assessment tools
Background: Accurate assessment of disease activity and disability progression is challenging in multiple sclerosis (MS) due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease. This includes assessment of upper extremity function (UEF) and mobility. The Assess MS system is currently being developed to improve this with automatic quantification of motor functions.
Objective: To determine how well several clinical ratings of the tests considered to be implemented in the Assess MS system explain UEF and mobility.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with MS according to the revised McDonald criteria 2010 were included and recruited from four European MS centres participating in the Assess MS project. Ratings of clinical tests covering UEF (i.e. Finger-to-Nose Test (FNT), Pronator Drift Test (PDT), drinking from CUP (CUP)) and mobility (i.e. Sit-To-Stand (STS), Romberg test (ROM), Turning-On-the-Spot (TOS), Tight-Rope-Walking (TRW), 25-foot walking (GAT)) were performed. After checking for co-linearity with partial regression (collinearity present if r ≥0.9), these tests were used in a multivariate linear regression model to determine how much they contribute to the variance of established measures for hand function (i.e. 9-Hole-Peg Test (9-HPT) and Arm Function in Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire (AMSQ)) and ambulation (Timed-25 Foot Walk test (T25-FW)).
Results: In total 213 patients were included. No significant collinearity was found between variables of the models. We found that FNT and CUP explained 40.8 and 47.6% of the variance of the right and left 9-HPT respectively. For the average value of the 9-HPT of the left and right hand, FNT, CUP and PDT explained 58.3% of the variance. The movements for UEF explained only 28.8% of the AMSQ variance. The CUP test contributed most in the model of 9-HPT and AMSQ. The tests for mobility explained 74.5% of variance of the T25-FW. The TOS test influenced the variance of T25-FW most strongly.
Conclusion: Combinations of ratings of clinical tests considered for the Assess MS system explained T25-FW fairly well. For 9-HPT and AMSQ this was found to a lesser extent. Therefore, other factors not captured with the Assess MS system appear to play a role in assessment of these functions by the current established measures.
Disclosure: C.E.P. van Munster has received travel support from Novartis Pharma AG, Sanofi Genzyme and Teva Pharmaceuticals; and honoraria for lecturing and consulting from Novartis Pharma AG, Biogen-Idec and Merck Serono; and compensation for serving in a scientific advisory board from Merck Serono and Sanofi Genzyme.
M. D`Souza has received travel support from Bayer AG, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme and research support from the University Hospital Basel
S. Steinheimer has no conflict of interest.
C.P. Kamm has received honoraria for lectures as well as research support from Biogen-Idec, Novartis Pharma AG, Almirall, Bayer Schweiz AG, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme and the Swiss MS Society.
J. Burggraaff has no conflict of interest.
J. Dorn is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
L. Walsh is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
J. Boisvert has no conflict of interest.
M. Diederich has no conflict of interest.
K. Kravalis has no conflict of interest.
F. Dahlke is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
L. Kappos has no conflict of interest.
B.M.J. Uitdehaag has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen-Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis Pharma AG, Roche en Teva Pharmaceuticals.
Abstract: P387
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 8 Clinical assessment tools
Background: Accurate assessment of disease activity and disability progression is challenging in multiple sclerosis (MS) due to the heterogeneous nature of the disease. This includes assessment of upper extremity function (UEF) and mobility. The Assess MS system is currently being developed to improve this with automatic quantification of motor functions.
Objective: To determine how well several clinical ratings of the tests considered to be implemented in the Assess MS system explain UEF and mobility.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with MS according to the revised McDonald criteria 2010 were included and recruited from four European MS centres participating in the Assess MS project. Ratings of clinical tests covering UEF (i.e. Finger-to-Nose Test (FNT), Pronator Drift Test (PDT), drinking from CUP (CUP)) and mobility (i.e. Sit-To-Stand (STS), Romberg test (ROM), Turning-On-the-Spot (TOS), Tight-Rope-Walking (TRW), 25-foot walking (GAT)) were performed. After checking for co-linearity with partial regression (collinearity present if r ≥0.9), these tests were used in a multivariate linear regression model to determine how much they contribute to the variance of established measures for hand function (i.e. 9-Hole-Peg Test (9-HPT) and Arm Function in Multiple Sclerosis Questionnaire (AMSQ)) and ambulation (Timed-25 Foot Walk test (T25-FW)).
Results: In total 213 patients were included. No significant collinearity was found between variables of the models. We found that FNT and CUP explained 40.8 and 47.6% of the variance of the right and left 9-HPT respectively. For the average value of the 9-HPT of the left and right hand, FNT, CUP and PDT explained 58.3% of the variance. The movements for UEF explained only 28.8% of the AMSQ variance. The CUP test contributed most in the model of 9-HPT and AMSQ. The tests for mobility explained 74.5% of variance of the T25-FW. The TOS test influenced the variance of T25-FW most strongly.
Conclusion: Combinations of ratings of clinical tests considered for the Assess MS system explained T25-FW fairly well. For 9-HPT and AMSQ this was found to a lesser extent. Therefore, other factors not captured with the Assess MS system appear to play a role in assessment of these functions by the current established measures.
Disclosure: C.E.P. van Munster has received travel support from Novartis Pharma AG, Sanofi Genzyme and Teva Pharmaceuticals; and honoraria for lecturing and consulting from Novartis Pharma AG, Biogen-Idec and Merck Serono; and compensation for serving in a scientific advisory board from Merck Serono and Sanofi Genzyme.
M. D`Souza has received travel support from Bayer AG, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme and research support from the University Hospital Basel
S. Steinheimer has no conflict of interest.
C.P. Kamm has received honoraria for lectures as well as research support from Biogen-Idec, Novartis Pharma AG, Almirall, Bayer Schweiz AG, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Sanofi Genzyme and the Swiss MS Society.
J. Burggraaff has no conflict of interest.
J. Dorn is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
L. Walsh is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
J. Boisvert has no conflict of interest.
M. Diederich has no conflict of interest.
K. Kravalis has no conflict of interest.
F. Dahlke is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG.
L. Kappos has no conflict of interest.
B.M.J. Uitdehaag has received personal compensation for consulting from Biogen-Idec, Sanofi Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis Pharma AG, Roche en Teva Pharmaceuticals.