A clinical risk score does not replace neurofilament testing for sorting trial participants
- Study published
- Added to this website
ALS progresses at very different speeds, which makes trials hard to read. Two ways of accounting for this are a clinical risk score built from symptoms and history (the TRICALS score) and a protein measured in spinal fluid that rises with nerve damage (phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain, pNfH).
Using data from the 220-person MIROCALS trial of low-dose interleukin-2, the authors tested whether the TRICALS score could stand in for pNfH. The two measures were only moderately related, sharing about 13% of their variation. Swapping pNfH for the score made the survival model clearly worse, although adding the score on top of pNfH gave some extra information.
The authors conclude the risk score complements the biomarker but cannot substitute for it.
What this does not show
This is a re-analysis of one mid-sized trial, by authors with patent and licensing interests in the trial drug. It says nothing about whether any treatment works.
Source
TRICALS risk score augments but cannot replace neurofilament as a prognostic biomarker in ALS
This summary explains a single study. It is not medical advice and does not say what applies to any one person. Talk to your ALS care team before making decisions about treatment or trials.