Responsiveness and Clinically Meaningful Improvement, According to Disability Level, of Five Walking Measures After Rehabilitation in Multiple Sclerosis

Background. Evaluation of treatment effects on walking requires appropriate and responsive outcome measures. Objectives. To determine responsiveness of 5 walking measures and provide reference values for clinically meaningful improvements, according to disability level, in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Methods. Walking tests were measured pre- and postrehabilitation in 290 pwMS from 17 European centers. Combined anchor- and distribution-based methods determined responsiveness of objective short and long walking capacity tests (Timed 25-Foot Walk [T25FW] and 2- and 6-Minute Walk Tests [2MWT and 6MWT] and of the patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale–12 [MSWS-12]). A global rating of change scale, from patients’ and therapists’ perspective, was used as external criteria to determine the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), minimally important change (MIC), and smallest real change (SRC). Patients were stratified into disability subgroups (Expanded Disability Status Scale score ≤4 [n = 98], >4 [n = 186]). Results. MSWS-12, 2MWT, and 6MWT were more responsive (AUC 0.64-0.73) than T25FW (0.50-0.63), especially in moderate to severely disabled pwMS. Clinically meaningful changes (MICs) from patient and therapist perspective were −10.4 and −11.4 for MSWS-12 (P < .01), 9.6 m and 6.8 m for 2MWT (P < .05), and 21.6 m (P < .05) and 9.1 m (P = .3) for 6MWT. In subgroups, MIC was significant from patient perspective for 2MWT (10.8 m) and from therapist perspective for MSWS-12 (−10.7) in mildly disabled pwMS. In moderate to severely disabled pwMS, MIC was significant for MSWS-12 (−14.1 and −11.9). Conclusions. Long walking tests and patient-reported MSWS-12 were more appropriate than short walking tests in detecting clinically meaningful improvement after physical rehabilitation, particularly the MSWS-12 for moderate to severely disabled pwMS.

[1]  C H Polman,et al.  Clinical impact of 20% worsening on Timed 25-foot Walk and 9-hole Peg Test in multiple sclerosis , 2006, Multiple sclerosis.

[2]  Jaana Paltamaa,et al.  Measuring Deterioration in International Classification of Functioning Domains of People With Multiple Sclerosis Who Are Ambulatory , 2008, Physical Therapy.

[3]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[4]  S. Reingold,et al.  The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment , 1999, Multiple sclerosis.

[5]  A. Holland,et al.  Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk distance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. , 2010, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[6]  A. Woodcock,et al.  Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. , 1982, British medical journal.

[7]  A. Compston,et al.  Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: Guidelines from the international panel on the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis , 2001, Annals of neurology.

[8]  J. Hobart,et al.  Evaluating change in mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: relative responsiveness of four clinical measures , 2013, Multiple sclerosis.

[9]  A J Thompson,et al.  Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability , 2003, Neurology.

[10]  J. Casillas,et al.  DETERMINING THE MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT 1 DIFFERENCE FOR THE SIX-MINUTE WALK TEST AND THE 2002 METER FAST WALK TEST DURING CARDIAC REHABILITATION 3 PROGRAM IN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE PATIENTS AFTER 4 ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME , 2017 .

[11]  S. Gold,et al.  Patient perception of bodily functions in multiple sclerosis: gait and visual function are the most valuable , 2008, Multiple sclerosis.

[12]  R. Hays,et al.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[14]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[15]  Gustave Moonen,et al.  Comparison of the Timed 25-Foot and the 100-Meter Walk as Performance Measures in Multiple Sclerosis , 2011, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[16]  Diana M Sobieraj,et al.  Minimally important clinical difference of the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test: results from a randomized controlled trial in patients with multiple sclerosis , 2012, Current medical research and opinion.

[17]  S. Haley,et al.  Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. , 2006, Physical therapy.

[18]  C. Polman,et al.  A comparison of responsiveness indices in multiple sclerosis patients , 1999, Quality of Life Research.

[19]  B M J Uitdehaag,et al.  Exercise Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis , 2022 .

[20]  V. Čapkun,et al.  Responsiveness of walking-based outcome measures after multiple sclerosis relapses following steroid pulses , 2011, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[21]  Robert W Motl,et al.  The reliability, precision and clinically meaningful change of walking assessments in multiple sclerosis , 2013, Multiple sclerosis.

[22]  N. Larocca.  Impact of Walking Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis , 2011, The patient.

[23]  R G Newcombe,et al.  Controlled randomised crossover trial of the effects of physiotherapy on mobility in chronic multiple sclerosis , 2001, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[24]  G. Guyatt,et al.  A critical look at transition ratings. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  J. Aarseth,et al.  The influence of warm versus cold climate on the effect of physiotherapy in multiple sclerosis , 2011, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[26]  V de Groot,et al.  The usefulness of evaluative outcome measures in patients with multiple sclerosis. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[27]  Jeffrey A. Cohen,et al.  Evaluation of the six-minute walk in multiple sclerosis subjects and healthy controls , 2008, Multiple sclerosis.

[28]  V. de Groot,et al.  Which walking capacity tests to use in multiple sclerosis? A multicentre study providing the basis for a core set , 2012, Multiple sclerosis.

[29]  A Thompson,et al.  The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. , 2001, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[30]  J. Kurtzke.  Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis , 1983, Neurology.

[31]  C. Polman,et al.  The patient's perception of a (reliable) change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional C omposite , 2004, Multiple sclerosis.

[32]  Robert W. Motl,et al.  Effect of Exercise Training on Walking Mobility in Multiple Sclerosis: A Meta-Analysis , 2009, Neurorehabilitation and neural repair.

[33]  V. de Groot,et al.  Effect of time of day on walking capacity and self-reported fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: a multi-center trial , 2012, Multiple sclerosis.

[34]  B. Bibby,et al.  Within-day variability on short and long walking tests in persons with multiple sclerosis , 2014, Journal of Neurological Sciences.

[35]  Geert Alders,et al.  Predicting habitual walking performance in multiple sclerosis: relevance of capacity and self-report measures , 2010, Multiple sclerosis.

[36]  Carlo Pozzilli,et al.  Assessing walking disability in multiple sclerosis , 2012, Multiple sclerosis.