Clinical Trial Intelligence

Which Endpoints Are Measured Most Often in European Multiple Sclerosis Phase II & III Trials?

11 July 2026

Across 57 European CTIS phase-specific multiple sclerosis trial records authorized from 2024 to 2026, endpoint measurement is broad but not evenly weighted. Safety/tolerability appears in 45/57 records (78.9%), MRI lesion activity in 39/57 (68.4%), and confirmed disability, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), or functional progression in 38/57 (66.7%). Primary endpoints are more efficacy-led, with MRI lesion activity leading at 16/57 records (28.1%), while secondary endpoints carry most safety, biomarker, pharmacokinetic, patient-reported, and functional burden.

Included records
57
European CTIS Phase II/III MS records
Phase split
24 / 33
Phase II vs Phase III records
Top endpoint family
45/57
Safety/tolerability measured somewhere
CTIS timing
93 days
Median initial submission-to-first authorization interval

Which endpoint families appear most often across MS Phase II and III records?

Safety/tolerability is the most frequent endpoint family, appearing in 45/57 records (78.9%). The two leading efficacy families are MRI lesion activity in 39/57 records (68.4%) and confirmed disability, EDSS, or functional progression in 38/57 records (66.7%).

Endpoint family prevalence across all records
Safety / tolerability 45/57 · 78.9%
MRI lesion activity 39/57 · 68.4%
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 38/57 · 66.7%
PRO / cognition / symptoms 35/57 · 61.4%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 27/57 · 47.4%
Relapse / ARR 27/57 · 47.4%
PK / exposure 24/57 · 42.1%
Brain volume / atrophy 21/57 · 36.8%
Immunogenicity / ADA 13/57 · 22.8%
NEDA / composite disease activity 10/57 · 17.5%
Denominator: 57 European CTIS Phase II/III multiple sclerosis phase-specific records. Endpoint families are non-exclusive.
Interpretation

The endpoint backbone is still built around conventional MS efficacy signals: inflammatory lesion activity, confirmed disability/function, and relapse. However, the most universal measurement layer is safety, which appears in nearly four out of five records.

How do endpoint families differ by primary, secondary, and exploratory status?

Primary endpoints concentrate on efficacy: MRI lesion activity appears as a primary family in 16/57 records (28.1%), relapse/annualized relapse rate (ARR) in 14/57 (24.6%), and disability/EDSS/function in 12/57 (21.1%). Secondary endpoints are much broader, led by safety in 41/57 records (71.9%), MRI lesion activity in 36/57 (63.2%), and disability/EDSS/function in 35/57 (61.4%).

Records containing each endpoint family by endpoint hierarchy
Endpoint family Primary Secondary Exploratory
Safety / tolerability 12 /57 41 /57 1 /57
MRI lesion activity 16 /57 36 /57 0 /57
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 12 /57 35 /57 0 /57
PRO / cognition / symptoms 4 /57 34 /57 0 /57
Biomarkers / immune profiling 1 /57 26 /57 1 /57
Relapse / ARR 14 /57 22 /57 0 /57
PK / exposure 4 /57 22 /57 0 /57
Brain volume / atrophy 8 /57 17 /57 0 /57
Immunogenicity / ADA 0 /57 13 /57 0 /57
NEDA / composite disease activity 3 /57 7 /57 0 /57
Health economics / resource use 0 /57 4 /57 0 /57
Endpoint hierarchy uses source primary, secondary, and other/exploratory endpoint fields. Counts show records containing each family at least once in that hierarchy.
Interpretation

MS trials rarely label endpoints as exploratory: 5 exploratory endpoint entries appear across 1/57 records (1.8%). Most operational and mechanistic measurement depth is therefore placed in the secondary endpoint tier rather than the exploratory tier.

How do endpoint patterns differ between Phase II and Phase III MS records?

The cohort contains 24 Phase II records (42.1%) and 33 Phase III records (57.9%). Phase II records emphasize safety (18/24; 75.0%), disability/function and PRO/cognition/symptom endpoints (16/24 each; 66.7%), while Phase III records show stronger relapse use (21/33; 63.6%) alongside safety (27/33; 81.8%) and MRI lesion activity (25/33; 75.8%).

Records containing each endpoint family by phase
Endpoint family Phase II Phase III
Safety / tolerability 18 /24 (75.0%) 27 /33 (81.8%)
MRI lesion activity 14 /24 (58.3%) 25 /33 (75.8%)
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 16 /24 (66.7%) 22 /33 (66.7%)
PRO / cognition / symptoms 16 /24 (66.7%) 19 /33 (57.6%)
Biomarkers / immune profiling 12 /24 (50.0%) 15 /33 (45.5%)
Relapse / ARR 6 /24 (25.0%) 21 /33 (63.6%)
PK / exposure 8 /24 (33.3%) 16 /33 (48.5%)
Brain volume / atrophy 7 /24 (29.2%) 14 /33 (42.4%)
Immunogenicity / ADA 5 /24 (20.8%) 8 /33 (24.2%)
NEDA / composite disease activity 3 /24 (12.5%) 7 /33 (21.2%)
Denominators: 24 Phase II records and 33 Phase III records. Endpoint families are non-exclusive.
Interpretation

The main phase signal is relapse: it appears in 21/33 Phase III records (63.6%) versus 6/24 Phase II records (25.0%). Phase II is more exploratory in measurement mix, with PRO/cognition/symptom endpoints matching disability/function at 16/24 records (66.7%).

Which MS sub-diseases drive different endpoint choices?

Relapsing/RRMS-spectrum records are the largest subtype group, appearing in 28/57 records (49.1%), followed by progressive/PPMS-SPMS-spectrum records in 19/57 (33.3%) and broad unspecified MS records in 14/57 (24.6%). Relapsing records emphasize safety, MRI lesions, and relapse; progressive records concentrate more heavily on disability/function and brain volume/atrophy.

Endpoint signatures in relapsing and progressive MS records
Relapsing / RRMS spectrum
28/57 records · non-exclusive subtype label
Safety / tolerability 24/28 · 85.7%
MRI lesion activity 21/28 · 75.0%
Relapse / ARR 18/28 · 64.3%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 15/28 · 53.6%
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 15/28 · 53.6%
PRO / cognition / symptoms 15/28 · 53.6%
Progressive / PPMS-SPMS spectrum
19/57 records · non-exclusive subtype label
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 18/19 · 94.7%
Brain volume / atrophy 14/19 · 73.7%
Safety / tolerability 14/19 · 73.7%
PRO / cognition / symptoms 14/19 · 73.7%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 12/19 · 63.2%
MRI lesion activity 12/19 · 63.2%
Subtype labels are derived from disease terms in the CTIS records and are non-exclusive; a record can contribute to more than one subtype group.
Interpretation

Progressive MS records show the clearest disability-centered design: 18/19 records (94.7%) contain disability, EDSS, or functional progression endpoints. Relapsing-spectrum records retain the classic inflammatory disease-control stack: safety in 24/28 (85.7%), MRI lesions in 21/28 (75.0%), and relapse/ARR in 18/28 (64.3%).

Do endpoint patterns differ by intervention modality?

Small molecules appear in 39/57 records (68.4%) and monoclonal antibodies in 30/57 records (52.6%), making them the most comparable modality groups. Safety is especially frequent in monoclonal antibody records (28/30; 93.3%), while small-molecule records spread more evenly across safety (28/39; 71.8%), MRI lesions (27/39; 69.2%), and disability/function (27/39; 69.2%).

Endpoint signatures in the largest modality groups
Small molecule
39/57 records
Safety / tolerability 28/39 · 71.8%
MRI lesion activity 27/39 · 69.2%
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 27/39 · 69.2%
PRO / cognition / symptoms 25/39 · 64.1%
Relapse / ARR 20/39 · 51.3%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 18/39 · 46.2%
Monoclonal antibody
30/57 records
Safety / tolerability 28/30 · 93.3%
MRI lesion activity 21/30 · 70.0%
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 19/30 · 63.3%
PK / exposure 17/30 · 56.7%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 17/30 · 56.7%
Relapse / ARR 16/30 · 53.3%
Cell therapy
5/57 records
Safety / tolerability 5/5 · 100.0%
Confirmed disability / EDSS / function 5/5 · 100.0%
PRO / cognition / symptoms 4/5 · 80.0%
Biomarkers / immune profiling 4/5 · 80.0%
MRI lesion activity 4/5 · 80.0%
Brain volume / atrophy 3/5 · 60.0%
Modality labels are non-exclusive because combination trials can list more than one intervention modality.
Interpretation

Monoclonal antibody records have a heavier safety and PK/immune-monitoring footprint: safety appears in 28/30 records (93.3%), PK/exposure in 17/30 (56.7%), and biomarkers/immune profiling in 17/30 (56.7%). Cell therapy records are fewer but show a concentrated multidomain profile, with safety and disability/function present in 5/5 records (100.0%).

What adjacent operational questions can the endpoint data answer?

The dataset also shows where endpoint burden sits and how quickly CTIS-submitted MS records moved from initial EU submission to first authorization. Across 573 extracted endpoint entries, 494 are secondary (86.2%), 74 are primary (12.9%), and 5 are exploratory/other (0.9%).

Secondary endpoint burden and CTIS timing
Secondary endpoint share
494/573
86.2% of extracted endpoint entries
Primary endpoint share
74/573
12.9% of extracted endpoint entries
Exploratory endpoint share
5/573
0.9% of extracted endpoint entries
Authorization timing
4–136 days
Range from initial CTIS submission to first authorization
2024 authorizations 34/57 · 59.6%
2025 authorizations 18/57 · 31.6%
2026 authorizations 5/57 · 8.8%
CTIS timing uses initial CTIS submission date and first CTIS authorization date recorded for each phase-specific record.
Interpretation

Endpoint complexity sits mainly outside the primary endpoint: secondary endpoints account for 494/573 extracted entries (86.2%). For EU/CTIS planning, Phase III records moved faster by median submission-to-authorization interval than Phase II records: 52.0 days versus 102.5 days.

Definitions used in the endpoint grouping

ARR means annualized relapse rate. EDSS means Expanded Disability Status Scale. CDP/CDW refer to confirmed disability progression or worsening. MRI lesion activity includes gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions, new or enlarging T2 lesions, FLAIR activity, and related radiological disease-activity endpoints. PRO includes patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, symptom scales, fatigue, pain, spasticity, and cognitive measures such as Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT).