Uncovering a bias in estimated treatment effects on PIRA in multiple sclerosis clinical trials

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Montobbio N, Bovis F, Signori A, Schiavetti I, Ponzano M] Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. [Carmisciano L] Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Italy. [Tur C] Centre d’Esclerosi Múltiple de Catalunya (CEMCAT), Barcelona, Spain. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2025-09-03T06:45:41Z

2025-09-03T06:45:41Z

2025-07



Abstract

Multiple sclerosis; Treatment effect bias; Progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA)


Esclerosi múltiple; Biaix de l'efecte del tractament; Progressió independent de l'activitat de recaiguda


Esclerosis múltiple; Sesgo del efecto del tratamiento; Progresión independiente de la actividad de recaída


Background: Interest in progression independent of relapse activity (PIRA) as an endpoint in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials is surging. However, established definitions of PIRA may produce biased treatment effect estimates in the presence of a treatment-induced relapse reduction. Methods: We applied different definitions of PIRA to pooled data from the OPERA I/II clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT01247324, NCT01412333). Treatment effects on PIRA according to different methods were quantified by hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs). Next, we evaluated the bias in each definition using synthetic Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) data simulating a control and an experimental arm with varying treatment effects on relapses and on PIRA. We quantified the bias by comparing the estimated effect on PIRA with the known true effect. Findings: The pooled OPERA I/II population included 1656 participants. Estimated treatment effects on PIRA varied from a non-significant HR of 0.83 (CI = 0.66-1.04) to an HR of 0.73 (CI = 0.59-0.90) depending on the definition used. Follow-up analyses on simulated data (n = 800 per arm) revealed an underestimation of the true treatment effect on PIRA when using established definitions, with increasing bias as treatment effect on relapses increased. Defining PIRA as complementary to relapse-associated worsening (RAW) provided a less biased and operationally simple alternative. Interpretation: For clinical trials with PIRA as an endpoint, we suggest a "complementary" definition of PIRA, relying on accurate exclusion of RAW promoted by appropriate visit timing.


Italian Ministry of University and Research.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Elsevier

Related items

eBioMedicine;117

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105802

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)