How should a ccsvi trial differ from an MS drug trial?

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

How should a ccsvi trial differ from an MS drug trial?

Postby Cece » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:52 pm

http://www.isnvdconference.org/program/ ... -book.html
Designing an Endovascular Trial – What Elements are Essential and Why CCSVI Trials Might Differ from Disease Modifying Trials?

Kottil W. Rammohan, M.D. Background: “Liberation” of CCSVI has been associated with reports of variable efficacy both in the short as well as in the long term. Most claims of efficacy has however not withstood the scientific rigors of double-blind trials. Many of these trials have suffered from ill-defined criteria of venous insufficiency, inadequate sample sizes, soft subjective endpoints, and most of all poorly defined criteria of response.

Design: Endovascular trial design to show short-term symptomatic efficacy is different from long-term studies that show effects on the ability of intervention to modify the natural history of MS. All trials should define the populations studied with rigorous criteria for CCSVI, and define change using validated instruments. Analysis of efficacy in short-term trials should not utilize standard group comparisons of sham vs. real intervention although this may be appropriate for long-term studies. Instead, analysis of both groups for responders would be the preferred mode of analysis.

Conclusion: Short-term trial design and responder analysis as a novel approach to defining effects of CCSVI will be discussed.

I understand this part: the CCSVI trials thus far have had "ill-defined criteria of venous insufficiency, inadequate sample sizes, soft subjective endpoints, and most of all poorly defined criteria of response."
I understand the difference between a short-term trial looking for symptomatic efficiency as opposed to a long-term trial looking for effects of the intervention on the MS disease course. I value both sides there: symptomatic relief is wonderful, and an impact on the course of MS would also be wonderful if that is what comes to pass.
I do not understand the part about that the analysis of efficacy in short-term trials as it relates to standard group comparisons of sham vs real intervention. What is the difference between that and the analysis of both groups for responders?
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: How should a ccsvi trial differ from an MS drug trial?

Postby CureOrBust » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:19 am

Cece wrote:I do not understand the part about that the analysis of efficacy in short-term trials as it relates to standard group comparisons of sham vs real intervention. What is the difference between that and the analysis of both groups for responders?
The difference to me is that if you seperate out the responders from both groups, and then compare the measured level of improvements (as opposed to reported levels by the responder), the writer would suggest that the difference would be clearer. For example, the responders in the real treatment group may have significantly more measurable levels of improvement, while the sham group only marginally improved. This may happen if the treatment is specific to a certain group, then those in that group would respond, respond highly. While sham responders, would generally respond in the expected "30%" way. Well, that's my two-bits of an understanding. :?
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2926
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: How should a ccsvi trial differ from an MS drug trial?

Postby Cece » Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:07 am

CureOrBust wrote:The difference to me is that if you seperate out the responders from both groups, and then compare the measured level of improvements (as opposed to reported levels by the responder), the writer would suggest that the difference would be clearer.

Oh that is smart.
And this came from Dr. Rammohan, neurologist, who denigrated all of us and the doctors as cult-followers in a different abstract.
Still a smart idea.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service