Original Research

Assessment of IV Edaravone Use in the Management of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the edaravone and control groups for differences in patient characteristics were made using χ2 and 2-sample t tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between the 2 groups for differences in study outcomes (ALSFRS-R scores, %FVC, SIS) at each time point were evaluated using 2-sample t tests. Adverse events and adverse drug reactions were compared between groups using χ2 tests. Statistical significance was set at 0.05.

We estimated that a sample size of 21 subjects in the edaravone (case) group and 42 in the standard-of-care (control) group would be needed to achieve 80% power to detect a difference of 6.5 between the 2 groups for the change in ALSFRS-R scores. This 80% power was calculated based on a 2-sample t test, and assuming a 2-sided 5% significance level and a within-group SD of 8.5.9 Statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results

figure
A total of 96 unique patients were seen in our multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2017 (Figure).

Of the 96 patients, 10 met exclusion criteria. From the remaining 86, 42 were randomly selected for the standard-of-care group. A total of 27 patients seen in multidisciplinary ALS clinic between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2020, received at least 1 dose of IV edaravone. Of the 27 edaravone patients, 6 were excluded for not completing a total of 6 months of edaravone. Two of the 6 excluded developed a rash, which resolved within 1 week after discontinuing edaravone. The other 4 discontinued edaravone before 6 months because of disease progression.

Baseline Characteristics

table 1
Baseline demographics were similar between the groups (Table 1). Most patients were White men with a mean age of 60 years. Baseline %FVC was about 68%. Fewer patients in the standard-of-care group were taking riluzole than in the edaravone group (67% vs 95%, respectively; P = .002). Mean (SD) baseline SIS scores were slightly higher in the standard-of-care group vs the edaravone group (2.0 [1.0] vs 1.4 [0.6], respectively; P = .01).

Efficacy

Tables 2-4
No difference was found in the ALSFRS-R scores at 6 months between the IV edaravone and standard-of-care groups (P = .84) (Table 2). Our study did not meet power to calculate statistical analysis at 12, 18, and 24 months due to its size. No difference was found in change from baseline %FVC at 6 months between the 2 groups (P = .30) (Table 3). Change between the 2 groups in baseline SIS at 6 months also was not different (P = .69) (Table 4). Sample size was insufficient to calculate %FVC and SIS at the 12, 18, and 24 month intervals.
table 5
No difference was noted in time to death between groups (P = .93) (Table 5), and no adverse events were reported in either group.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Cluster, migraine headache strongly linked to circadian rhythm
Federal Practitioner
Cancer risk elevated after stroke in younger people
Federal Practitioner
Specific brain damage links hypertension to cognitive impairment
Federal Practitioner
Magnesium-rich diet linked to lower dementia risk
Federal Practitioner
Four PTSD blood biomarkers identified
Federal Practitioner
Noisy incubators could stunt infant hearing
Federal Practitioner
Antiamyloids linked to accelerated brain atrophy
Federal Practitioner
New guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management released
Federal Practitioner
First target doesn’t affect survival in NSCLC with brain metastases
Federal Practitioner
Acute Painful Horner Syndrome as the First Presenting Sign of Carotid Artery Dissection
Federal Practitioner

Related Articles