Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Still seeking the holy grail of outcome measures in inclusion body myositis
  1. Jean-Yves Hogrel
  1. Neuromuscular Investigation Center, Institute of Myology, Paris, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jean-Yves Hogrel, Neuromuscular Investigation Center, Institute of Myology, Paris, Île-de-France, France; jy.hogrel{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Are few selected measures more relevant than multiple measures?

The choice of a primary endpoint in therapeutic trials is critical for patients, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and investors but, not for the same reasons. This decision may lead to a trial failure/success purely based on the selection of the primary criterion itself. Studies on disease natural history seek to assist the sponsor in making this crucial choice.

Sangha et al 1 report important information in a natural history study of the largest cohort studied up until now, of patients with inclusion body myositis (IBM), the most prevalent inflammatory disease of the muscle, in older adults. This study is a useful and impressive extension of a work by the same team, published in 2013.2 Manual muscle testing (MMT) of 23 muscle groups, bilaterally and fixed dynamometry (termed here as Quantified Muscle Testing: QMT) of six muscle groups, bilaterally were used to assess patients’ strength and, the IBM Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) was used to evaluate function. Judiciously, MMT scores were summed before being expressed as a percentage of maximal possible …

View Full Text


  • Contributors J-YH is the sole author of this sollicited editorial commentary.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles