Getting the measure of spasticity in multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88).

Spasticity is most commonly defined as an inappropriate, velocity dependent, increase in muscle tonic stretch reflexes, due to the amplified reactivity of motor segments to sensory input. It forms one component of the upper motor neuron syndrome and often leads to muscle stiffness and disability. Spasticity can, therefore, be measured through electrophysiological, biomechanical and clinical evaluation, the last most commonly using the Ashworth scale. None of these techniques incorporate the patient experience of spasticity, nor how it affects people's daily lives. Consequently, we set out to construct a rating scale to quantify the perspectives of the impact of spasticity on people with multiple sclerosis. Qualitative methods (in-depth patient interviews and focus groups, expert opinion and literature review) were used to develop a conceptual framework of spasticity impact, and to generate a pool of items with the potential to convert this framework into a rating scale with multiple dimensions. This item pool was administered, in the form of a questionnaire, to a sample of people with multiple sclerosis and spasticity. Guided by Rasch analysis, we constructed and validated a rating scale for each component of the conceptual framework. Decisions regarding item selection were based on the integration and assimilation of seven specific analyses including clinical meaning, ordering of thresholds, fit statistics and differential item functioning. The qualitative phase (17 patient interviews, 3 focus groups) generated 144 potential scale items and a conceptual model with eight components addressing symptoms (muscle stiffness, pain and discomfort and muscle spasms,), physical impact (activities of daily living, walking and body movements) and psychosocial impact (emotional health, social functioning). The first postal survey was sent to 272 people with multiple sclerosis and had a response rate of 88%. Findings supported the development of scales for each component but demonstrated that five item response options were too many. The 144-item questionnaire, reformatted with four-item response options, was administered with four validating instruments to an independent sample of 259 people with multiple sclerosis (response rate 78%). From the responses, an 88-item instrument with eight subscales was developed that satisfied criteria for reliable and valid measurement. Correlations with other measures were consistent with predictions. The 88-item Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS-88) is a reliable and valid, patient-based, interval-level measure of the impact of spasticity in multiple sclerosis. It has the potential to advance outcomes measurement in clinical trials and clinical practice, and provides a new perspective in the clinical evaluation of spasticity.

Cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (CAMS) study: safety and efficacy data for 12 months follow up.

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness and long term safety of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis (MS), in a follow up to the main Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis (CAMS) study. METHODS: In total, 630 patients with stable MS with muscle spasticity from 33 UK centres were randomised to receive oral Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC), cannabis extract, or placebo in the main 15 week CAMS study. The primary outcome was change in the Ashworth spasticity scale. Secondary outcomes were the Rivermead Mobility Index, timed 10 metre walk, UK Neurological Disability Score, postal Barthel Index, General Health Questionnaire-30, and a series of nine category rating scales. Following the main study, patients were invited to continue medication, double blinded, for up to 12 months in the follow up study reported here. RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis of data from the 80% of patients followed up for 12 months showed evidence of a small treatment effect on muscle spasticity as measured by change in Ashworth score from baseline to 12 months (Delta(9)-THC mean reduction 1.82 (n = 154, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.12), cannabis extract 0.10 (n = 172, 95% CI -0.99 to 1.19), placebo -0.23 (n = 176, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.94); p = 0.04 unadjusted for ambulatory status and centre, p = 0.01 adjusted). There was suggestive evidence for treatment effects of Delta(9)-THC on some aspects of disability. There were no major safety concerns. Overall, patients felt that these drugs were helpful in treating their disease. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide limited evidence for a longer term treatment effect of cannabinoids. A long term placebo controlled study is now needed to establish whether cannabinoids may have a role beyond symptom amelioration in MS.