ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Consensus criteria to formalize the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and refine clinical trial populations have evolved. The recently proposed Gold Coast consensus criteria are intended to simplify use and increase sensitivity. We aimed to evaluate the potential impact of these criteria on clinical trial eligibility. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective study of people diagnosed with ALS between 2016 and 2021 to determine the numbers of those meeting Gold Coast, revised El Escorial (rEEC) criteria, and Awaji criteria. We identified the proportion of those who would have been eligible for participation in three major ALS clinical trials if Gold Coast were used in place of rEEC definite/probable criteria. (rEEC D/P). RESULTS: Two hundred six people with ALS were included in our study. 48.5% met Gold Coast criteria but not rEEC D/P. Using the Gold Coast criteria would result in higher rates of clinical trial eligibility after other inclusion criteria were met: 95.2% vs 42.5% (P < .001) in a phase III study of riluzole; 100% vs 31.0% (P = .002) in a phase III study of edaravone; and 95.6% vs 45.3% (P < .001) in an ongoing phase III study of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol. The sensitivity of the Gold Coast criteria (96.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 92.2%-98.2%) was significantly higher than that of rEEC D/P (47.6%; 95% CI, 40.6%-54.6%; for difference, χ2 = 117.6; P < .001). DISCUSSION: Until robust biomarkers are available to diagnose ALS, consensus diagnostic criteria remain necessary. Gold Coast criteria would expand research and clinical trial eligibility and improve external validity of clinical trial results.
