Spatial and temporal characteristics of gait as outcome measures in multiple sclerosis (EDSS 0 to 6.5)

Background: Gait impairment represents one of the most common and disabling symptom of multiple sclerosis. Quantification of the gait is an important aspect of clinical trials. In order to identify which temporal or spatial parameters of gait could be used as outcome measures in interventional studies of patients with different levels of disability, we evaluated characteristics of these parameters in MS patients across the whole spectrum of mobility from EDSS 0 to 6.5. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of spatial and temporal parameters of gait at self selected speed and at fast speed of walking in 284 patients with multiple sclerosis (108 men, mean age 38 years ± SD 10.8 years, range 18–64) divided into seven levels of disability (EDSS 0 to 1.5, EDSS 2.0 to 2.5, EDSS 3.0 to 3.5, EDSS 4.0 to 4.5, EDSS 5.0 to 5.5, EDSS 6.0, EDSS 6.5). Results: The velocity of gait decreases with increasing EDSS levels. Hovewer, the spatio-temporal parameters of gait that are involved in this process differ across the EDSS levels. The step length is decreased at higher EDSS levels up to the EDSS 6.0, but was not different between EDSS 6.0 and 6.5. The step time is significantly longer at EDSS 6.0 and 6.5, while the step length remains the same at those levels. The increase in percentage of double support time becomes statistically significant at EDSS 3.0-3.5 and continues to increase until EDSS 6.5. Variability of step time, step length or step width did not show significant difference between studied EDSS levels. Conclusions: There is no single spatio-temporal parameter of gait (other than velocity of gait) that would show significant differences among all levels of EDSS. The step length reflects shortening of steps at lower EDSS levels (2.0 to 6.0), and percentage of double support time better reflects changes at higher EDSS levels 3.0 – 6.5. Gait variability is not associated with disability in MS and therefore would not be a suitable outcome measure. T

Recombinant T-Cell Receptor Ligand (RTL) for Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1, Dose-Escalation Study

Background. Recombinant T-cell receptor ligand 1000 (RTL1000) is a single-chain protein construct containing the outer two domains of HLA-DR2 linked to myelin-oligodendrocyte-glycoprotein- (MOG-) 35–55 peptide. Analogues of RTL1000 induce T-cell tolerance, reverse clinical and histological disease, and promote repair in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) in DR2 transgenic, C57BL/6, and SJL/J mice. Objective. Determining the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and tolerability of RTL1000 in multiple sclerosis (MS) subjects. Methods. This was a multicenter, Phase I dose-escalation study in HLA-DR2+ MS subjects. Consecutive cohorts received RTL1000 doses of 2, 6, 20, 60, 200, and 100 mg, respectively. Subjects within each cohort randomly received a single intravenous infusion of RTL1000 or placebo at a 4 : 2 ratio. Safety monitoring included clinical, laboratory, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations. Results. Thirty-four subjects completed the protocol. All subjects tolerated the 2–60 mg doses of RTL1000. Doses ≥100 mg caused hypotension and diarrhea in 3 of 4 subjects, leading to discontinuation of further enrollment. Conclusions. The maximum tolerated dose of RTL1000 in MS subjects is 60 mg, comparable to effective RTL doses in EAE. RTL1000 is a novel approach for MS treatment that may induce immunoregulation without immunosuppression and promote neural repair

APOSTEL 2.0 Recommendations for Reporting Quantitative Optical Coherence Tomography Studies.

OBJECTIVE To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations. METHODS To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms "quantitative" and "optical coherence tomography" from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes. RESULTS A total of 116 authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans, and suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants' consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%. CONCLUSIONS The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence Class III; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [GRADE] criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, funduscopic imaging, postacquisition data selection, postacquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly

The OSCAR-MP consensus criteria for quality assessment of retinal optical coherence tomography angiography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) is a noninvasive high-resolution imaging technique for assessing the retinal vasculature and is increasingly used in various ophthalmologic, neuro-ophthalmologic, and neurologic diseases. To date, there are no validated consensus criteria for quality control (QC) of OCTA. Our study aimed to develop criteria for OCTA quality assessment. METHODS: To establish criteria through (1) extensive literature review on OCTA artifacts and image quality to generate standardized and easy-to-apply OCTA QC criteria, (2) application of OCTA QC criteria to evaluate interrater agreement, (3) identification of reasons for interrater disagreement, revision of OCTA QC criteria, development of OCTA QC scoring guide and training set, and (4) validation of QC criteria in an international, interdisciplinary multicenter study. RESULTS: We identified 7 major aspects that affect OCTA quality: (O) obvious problems, (S) signal strength, (C) centration, (A) algorithm failure, (R) retinal pathology, (M) motion artifacts, and (P) projection artifacts. Seven independent raters applied the OSCAR-MP criteria to a set of 40 OCTA scans from people with MS, Sjogren syndrome, and uveitis and healthy individuals. The interrater kappa was substantial (? 0.67). Projection artifacts were the main reason for interrater disagreement. Because artifacts can affect only parts of OCTA images, we agreed that prior definition of a specific region of interest (ROI) is crucial for subsequent OCTA quality assessment. To enhance artifact recognition and interrater agreement on reduced image quality, we designed a scoring guide and OCTA training set. Using these educational tools, 23 raters from 14 different centers reached an almost perfect agreement (? 0.92) for the rejection of poor-quality OCTA images using the OSCAR-MP criteria. DISCUSSION: We propose a 3-step approach for standardized quality control: (1) To define a specific ROI, (2) to assess the occurrence of OCTA artifacts according to the OSCAR-MP criteria, and (3) to evaluate OCTA quality based on the occurrence of different artifacts within the ROI. OSCAR-MP OCTA QC criteria achieved high interrater agreement in an international multicenter study and is a promising QC protocol for application in the context of future clinical trials and studies

APOSTEL 2.0 recommendations for reporting quantitative optical coherence tomography studies

OBJECTIVE: To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations. METHODS: To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms “quantitative” and “optical coherence tomography” from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts, and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point-checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans; we suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants’ consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence class III, GRADE criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, fundoscopic imaging, post-acquisition data selection, post-acquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will still be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly

Artificial intelligence extension of the OSCAR-IB criteria

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic algorithms have achieved ambitious aims through automated image pattern recognition. For neurological disorders, this includes neurodegeneration and inflammation. Scalable imaging technology for big data in neurology is optical coherence tomography (OCT). We highlight that OCT changes observed in the retina, as a window to the brain, are small, requiring rigorous quality control pipelines. There are existing tools for this purpose. Firstly, there are human-led validated consensus quality control criteria (OSCAR-IB) for OCT. Secondly, these criteria are embedded into OCT reporting guidelines (APOSTEL). The use of the described annotation of failed OCT scans advances machine learning. This is illustrated through the present review of the advantages and disadvantages of AI-based applications to OCT data. The neurological conditions reviewed here for the use of big data include Alzheimer disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson disease, and epilepsy. It is noted that while big data is relevant for AI, ownership is complex. For this reason, we also reached out to involve representatives from patient organizations and the public domain in addition to clinical and research centers. The evidence reviewed can be grouped in a five-point expansion of the OSCAR-IB criteria to embrace AI (OSCAR-AI). The review concludes by specific recommendations on how this can be achieved practically and in compliance with existing guidelines