Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
letter
. 2017 Jun 8;22(2):149–152. doi: 10.1111/jns.12204

Minimum clinically important difference analysis confirms the efficacy of IgPro10 in CIDP: the PRIMA trial

Ingemar S J Merkies 1,✉, John‐Philip Lawo 2, Jonathan M Edelman 3, Jan L De Bleecker 4, Claudia Sommer 5, Wim Robberecht 6, Mika Saarela 7, Jerzy Kamienowski 8, Zbigniew Stelmasiak 9, Orell Mielke 2, Björn Tackenberg 10, Jean‐Marc Léger 11; on behalf of the PRIMA trial investigators†
PMCID: PMC6084359  PMID: 28594116

Dear Editor,

The PRIMA (PRivigen Impact on Mobility and Autonomy, NCT01184846) trial, a prospective, multi‐center, single‐arm, open‐label, phase III trial, was designed to assess efficacy and safety of IgPro10 (10% liquid IVIG formulated with L‐proline, Privigen®, CSL Behring, Berne, Switzerland) in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) (Léger et al., 2013 ). The primary outcome of the PRIMA study was the responder rate by the 10‐point adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability score (responders defined as showing an INCAT score improvement ≥1 vs baseline). The success criterion (responder rate ≥35%) was met, making IgPro10 the second IgG product with demonstrated efficacy in CIDP (after IGIV‐C) (Hughes et al., 2008 ; Léger et al., 2013 ).

Here we examine the clinical relevance of the PRIMA study results using the concept of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which is defined as the smallest difference in clinical score that patients perceive as beneficial and that could lead to a change in the patient's management (Jaeschke et al., 1989 ). For this analysis, responder rates for various outcome measures used in the PRIMA trial were recalculated based on MCID cut‐off values obtained through selected methods to determine whether the statistically significant results obtained previously also reflect clinically meaningful changes for patients with CIDP.

In the PRIMA trial, 28 adult patients with definite or probable CIDP were included. All the enrolled patients first received an IgPro10 induction dose of 2 g/kg body weight in week 1, followed by up to seven infusions of 1 g/kg body weight at 3‐week intervals.

Outcome measures used in the PRIMA trial were selected based on previous recommendations for assessment in inflammatory neuropathies (Merkies and Lauria, 2006 ; Lunn et al., 2008 ). Change in INCAT scores, Medical Research Council (MRC) sum scores, and maximum grip strengths upon treatment start recorded in the PRIMA trial (assessed at baseline and every 3 weeks thereafter (Léger et al., 2013 )) were examined here by applying selected MCID‐based techniques (Kleyweg et al., 1991 ; Hughes et al., 2001 ; Lunn et al., 2008 ).

Because of a lack of consensus on the optimal method for MCID determination in CIDP, a combination of techniques was recommended (Merkies et al., 2010 ). The methods selected for the present analysis were an anchor‐based method (using the Short Form 36, question 2 (Ware et al., 2000 )), which compares the changes in outcome measures with the patient's perception of clinical improvement, and a distribution‐based method that uses half standard deviation of each of the chosen scales (Sloan et al., 2003 ).

The MCID cut‐off values, determined using the techniques described above and published previously, were adopted for INCAT score, MRC sum score, and grip strength (Merkies et al., 2010 ). Because the INCAT and MRC sum scores only use integer values, the MCID for these parameters were rounded to 1 and 4, respectively. For grip strength assessment, an MCID value of 8 kPa was chosen because it has showed satisfactory discriminatory abilities between treatment and placebo outcomes in CIDP (Merkies et al., 2010 ). In this analysis, all patients with a change in outcome measure between baseline and study end larger or equal to the MCID cut‐off value were considered responders.

From the results of this analysis, responder rates for all recalculated outcome measures showed that a substantial proportion of patients achieved a clinically relevant improvement. For the INCAT disability scale, the primary endpoint, the MCID‐based response rate was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42%, 76%; Fig. 1), higher than the preset level of >35%. Based on MRC sum score and grip strength MCIDs, 17 and 10 patients were defined as responders, which corresponds to response rates of 61% (95% CI: 42%, 76%) and 36% (95% CI: 21%, 54%), respectively.

Figure 1.

JNS-12204-FIG-0001-b

Open in a new tab

Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. The responder rates for the PRIMA study (non‐MCID) were reported previously (Merkies et al., 2010 ).

In all patients except two, at least one of the outcome measures reached the calculated MCID cut‐off. Of the 28 patients 11 (39%) had at least two outcome measures that reached the calculated corresponding MCID cut‐offs, and in 8 patients (29%) all three scales reached the corresponding MCID thresholds.

The current analysis therefore demonstrates, by applying the concept of MCID, that the benefit of IgPro10 in CIDP is clinically meaningful in addition to being statistically significant. The proportion of patients reaching the predefined MCID cut‐off for the primary outcome (INCAT disability scale) was equivalent to the responder rate calculated in the original study (Léger et al., 2013 ).

The findings using the INCAT scale were validated by the impairment outcome measures of MRC sum score and grip strength. The lower proportion of patients showing clinically meaningful improvement in grip strength (36%) compared with INCAT disability scale and MRC sum score (both 61%) is probably due to the following aspects. While grip strength evaluates focal impairment, in the current study of the dominant hand, the INCAT and MRC scores provide a more overall dysfunction of the patients examined (Léger et al., 2013 ). In addition, the stringent cut‐off used for grip strength could have led to a lower MCID response when compared with the ordinal‐based INCAT and MRC measures, the scores of which might be inflated (Tennant and Conaghan, 2007 ; Marais and Andrich, 2008 ; Léger et al., 2013 ; Vanhoutte et al., 2015 ). The small sample size and possibly non‐uniform improvement across muscle groups might have also contributed to the differences. Finally, local dependency is seen in MRC sum score, which could also inflate response findings (Vanhoutte et al., 2012 ; Draak et al., 2015 ). The findings using the impairment measures were also compatible with previous reports (Merkies et al., 2010 ).

The limitations of this analysis are related to methodological issues. First, the concept of MCID was applied to two outcome measures that are based on ordinal scales and are considered non‐linear (INCAT and MRC) (Vanhoutte et al., 2013 ; Draak et al., 2014 ); therefore, the calculated MCID cut‐off values may vary across the range of values for these scales (Merkies et al., 2010 ; Vanhoutte et al., 2013 ). Such variations in MCID have been demonstrated in several articles based on the varying measurement imprecisions (standard errors) (Heesch et al., 2006 ; Hobart and Cano, 2009 ; Vanhoutte et al., 2013 ). Second, the lack of consensus regarding which MCID determination technique (or combination thereof) should be used in CIDP warrants discussion among experts to reach a consensus. In this analysis, the anchor‐based method was considered appropriate to take into account both objective and subjective evaluation of improvement, while the distribution‐based method served as comparator. Third, the sample size is relatively small, as the power calculation was based on the results of the ICE trial and the expected response rate (Léger et al., 2013 ). Briefly, due to the lower number of IVIG‐naïve patients in the PRIMA study compared with the ICE study, the responder rate was expected to be higher and the necessary sample size smaller (20 evaluable patients). In the ICE study, a similar number of patients in the IVIG‐C group was treated for 24 weeks (n = 33), while 23 patients not responding by week 6 were crossed over to placebo (Hughes et al., 2008 ).

Despite these limitations, the findings in the current analysis demonstrate that the efficacy of IgPro10 in patients with CIDP shown in the PRIMA trial is clinically relevant.

Disclosures

I. S. J. M. received funding for research from the Talecris Talents programme, the GSB CIDP Foundation International, and the European Union 7th Framework Programme (grant n°602273); furthermore, a research foundation at the University of Maastricht has received honoraria on his behalf for participation in steering committees of the Talecris ICE Study, CSL Behring, LFB, and Novartis. J.‐P. L. and J. M. E. are employees of CSL Behring. J. L. D. B. reports personal fees from CSL Behring for the PRIMA study conduct. C. S. reports support from CSL Behring for the PRIMA study conduct; personal fees from Astellas, Baxter, Genzyme, Pfizer, Grifols, Kedrion, and Pfizer; grants from the European Union 7th Framework Programme, outside the submitted work. W. R. reports grants from Von Behring Chair for Neuromuscular and Neurodegenerative Diseases, outside the submitted work. M. S. reports personal fees from Baxter, CSL Behring, Genzyme, Orion Pharma, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J. K. and Z. S. have nothing to disclose. O. M. is an employee of CSL Behring. B. T. reports personal fees from CSL Behring for study conduct; personal fees from Talecris/GRIFOLS and Octapharma, outside the submitted work. J.‐M. L. reports support from CSL Behring (PRIMA study), Novartis (CIDP study), LFB (MMN [Lime], and CIDP studies); personal fees from CSL Behring France and LFB, outside the submitted work.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alphonse Hubsch from CSL Behring AG, Berne, Switzerland for the critical review of this Letter. The authors acknowledge the editorial support of Emiliana Jelezarova, PhD, from Fishawack Communications GmbH, a member of the Fishawack Group of Companies, supported by CSL Behring.

Belgium

J. L. De Bleecker, AZ St‐Lucas, Gent (five patients).

W. Robberecht, UZ Leuven, Leuven (three patients).

Finland

M. Saarela, HUS Meilahti Hospital, Helsinki (three patients).

France

J. Franques, Hôpital de la Timone, Neurologie et Maladies Neuro‐Musculaire, Marseille (two patients).

J.‐M. Léger, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié‐Salpêtrière Unité de Pathologie Neuro‐Musculaire, Paris (one patient).

R. Juntas Morales, CHRU Hôpital Gui de Chauliac, Montpellier (one patient).

Germany

C. Sommer, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg (four patients).

A. Nguento, ASKLEPIOS Klinikum Uckermark GmbH, Schwedt (two patients).

J. Schmidt, Universtitätsmedizin Göttingen, Georg‐August‐Universität, Göttingen (one patient).

Ch. Schrey, Facharzt für Neurologie, Berlin (one patient).

Poland

J. Kamienowski, Dolnośląski Szpital Specjalistyczny, Wrocław (three patients).

Z. Stelmasiak, Samodzielny Publiczny Szpital Kliniczny, Lublin (three patients).

G. Zwolińska, Centrum Neurologii Klinicznej, Kraków (two patients).

Contributor Information

Ingemar S. J. Merkies, Email: isjmerkies@planet.nl

on behalf of the PRIMA trial investigators:

J. L. De Bleecker, W. Robberecht, M. Saarela, J. Franques, J.‐M. Léger, R. Juntas Morales, C. Sommer, A. Nguento, J. Schmidt, Ch. Schrey, J. Kamienowski, Z. Stelmasiak, and G. Zwolińska

References

  1. Draak TH, Vanhoutte EK, van Nes SI, Gorson KC, van der Pol WL, Notermans NC, Nobile‐Orazio E, Léger JM, Van den Bergh PY, Lauria G, Bril V, Katzberg H, Lunn MP, Pouget J, van der Kooi AJ, Hahn AF, Doorn PA, Cornblath DR, van den Berg LH, Faber CG, Merkies IS (2014). Changing outcome in inflammatory neuropathies: Rasch‐comparative responsiveness. Neurology 83:2124–2132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Draak TH, Vanhoutte EK, van Nes SI, Gorson KC, van der Pol WL, Notermans NC, Nobile‐Orazio E, Lewis RA, Léger JM, Van den Bergh PY, Lauria G, Bril V, Katzberg H, Lunn MP, Pouget J, van der Kooi AJ, Hahn AF, van den Berg LH, van Doorn PA, Cornblath DR, Faber CG, Merkies IS (2015). Comparing the NIS vs. MRC and INCAT sensory scale through Rasch analyses. J Peripher Nerv Syst 20:277–288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Heesch KC, Masse LC, Dunn AL (2006). Using Rasch modeling to re‐evaluate three scales related to physical activity: enjoyment, perceived benefits and perceived barriers. Health Educ Res 21(Suppl 1):i58–i72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hobart J, Cano S (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 13(iii, ix‐x):1–177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hughes R, Bensa S, Willison H, Van den BP, Comi G, Illa I, Nobile‐Orazio E, van Doorn P, Dalakas M, Bojar M, Swan A (2001). Randomized controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin versus oral prednisolone in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Ann Neurol 50:195–201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hughes RA, Donofrio P, Bril V, Dalakas MC, Deng C, Hanna K, Hartung HP, Latov N, Merkies IS, van Doorn PA (2008). Intravenous immune globulin (10% caprylate‐chromatography purified) for the treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (ICE study): a randomised placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 7:136–144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 10:407–415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kleyweg RP, van der Meche FG, Schmitz PI (1991). Interobserver agreement in the assessment of muscle strength and functional abilities in Guillain‐Barre syndrome. Muscle Nerve 14:1103–1109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Léger JM, De Bleecker JL, Sommer C, Robberecht W, Saarela M, Kamienowski J, Stelmasiak Z, Mielke O, Tackenberg B, Shebl A, Bauhofer A, Zenker O, Merkies IS (2013). Efficacy and safety of Privigen® in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: results of a prospective, single‐arm, open‐label Phase III study (the PRIMA study). J Peripher Nerv Syst 18:130–140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lunn MP, Léger JM, Merkies IS, Van den Bergh P, van Schaik IN (2008). 151st ENMC international workshop: Inflammatory Neuropathy Consortium 13th‐15th April 2007, Schiphol, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 18:85–89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Marais I, Andrich D (2008). Formalizing dimension and response violations of local independence in the unidimensional Rasch model. J Appl Meas 9:200–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Merkies IS, Lauria G (2006). 131st ENMC international workshop: selection of outcome measures for peripheral neuropathy clinical trials 10‐12 December 2004, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 16:149–156. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Merkies IS, van Nes SI, Hanna K, Hughes RA, Deng C (2010). Confirming the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in CIDP through minimum clinically important differences: shifting from statistical significance to clinical relevance. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:1194–1199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sloan J, Symonds T, Vargas‐Chanes D, Friedley B (2003). Practical guidelines for assessing the clinical significance of health‐related quality of life changes within clinical trials. Drug Inf J 37:23–31. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tennant A, Conaghan PG (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 57:1358–1362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Vanhoutte EK, Faber CG, van Nes SI, Jacobs BC, van Doorn PA, van Koningsveld R, Cornblath DR, van der Kooi AJ, Cats EA, van den Berg LH, Notermans NC, van der Pol WL, Hermans MC, van der Beek NA, Gorson KC, Eurelings M, Engelsman J, Boot H, Meijer RJ, Lauria G, Tennant A, Merkies IS (2012). Modifying the Medical Research Council grading system through Rasch analyses. Brain 135:1639–1649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Vanhoutte EK, Faber CG, Merkies IS (2013). 196th ENMC international workshop: Outcome measures in inflammatory peripheral neuropathies 8‐10 February 2013, Naarden, The Netherlands. Neuromuscul Disord 23:924–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Vanhoutte EK, Hermans MC, Faber CG, Gorson KC, Merkies IS, Thonnard JL (2015). Rasch‐ionale for neurologists. J Peripher Nerv Syst 20:260–268. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B (2000). SF‐36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. QualityMetric Incorporated, Lincoln, RI. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES