两项行业赞助的阿尔茨海默病临床试验中信息提供者替代的影响

IF 4.9 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Mikaela K. Nishida, Michelle M. Nuño, Joshua D. Grill, Daniel L. Gillen
{"title":"两项行业赞助的阿尔茨海默病临床试验中信息提供者替代的影响","authors":"Mikaela K. Nishida,&nbsp;Michelle M. Nuño,&nbsp;Joshua D. Grill,&nbsp;Daniel L. Gillen","doi":"10.1002/trc2.70009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\n \n <p>In Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials, participants must enroll with a study partner informant who completes validated study instruments. We hypothesized that mid-trial informant replacement impacts study data in industry-sponsored trials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> METHODS</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of two industry-sponsored AD clinical trials testing semagacestat in mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We assessed the relationships between informant replacement and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Using generalized estimating equations, we assessed bias and variability using mean (bias) and mean absolute (variance) change in ADCS-ADL between successive visits as outcomes. Both models adjusted for a priori–specified potential confounding variables including participant sex, age, informant type, trial, time, previous ADCS-ADL score, and region. To analyze the impact on end-of-study change-from-baseline results, we used an analysis of covariance model to estimate the association between replacement and end-of-study change-from-baseline in ADCS-ADL, in which we adjusted for participant sex, age, informant type, trial, baseline measurement, and region. We conducted an <i>F</i>-test to compare the variances of this change.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\n \n <p>Among <i>N</i> = 2637 randomized participants, 69 participants (2.6%) experienced 78 occurrences of replacement. For visits standardized to be 3 months apart, the difference in mean between-visit change in ADCS-ADL was approximately −1.61 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.79, 0.57; <i>P</i> = 0.147), comparing participants who experienced replacement to similar participants who had stable informants. The difference in the mean between-visit absolute change was approximately 2.02 points (95% CI: 0.34, 3.70; <i>P</i> = 0.019). We did not estimate a statistically significant difference in end-of-study change-from-baseline (Est. = −0.70 points; 95% CI: −5.88, 4.48; <i>P</i> = 0.790) or a significant ratio of variances (Est. = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.67, 2.28; <i>P</i> = 0.600) for participants with replacement compared to those with stable informants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\n \n <p>Informant replacement was associated with increased between-visit variability but had limited impact on overall trial outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Highlights</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Informant replacement occurred in 2.6% of participants in these industry trials.</li>\n \n <li>Informant replacement was associated with increased variance in acute Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living reporting.</li>\n \n <li>Informant replacement had a limited impact on overall change-from-baseline outcomes.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":53225,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","volume":"10 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/trc2.70009","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impacts of informant replacement in two industry-sponsored Alzheimer's disease clinical trials\",\"authors\":\"Mikaela K. Nishida,&nbsp;Michelle M. Nuño,&nbsp;Joshua D. Grill,&nbsp;Daniel L. Gillen\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/trc2.70009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> INTRODUCTION</h3>\\n \\n <p>In Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials, participants must enroll with a study partner informant who completes validated study instruments. We hypothesized that mid-trial informant replacement impacts study data in industry-sponsored trials.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> METHODS</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a retrospective analysis of two industry-sponsored AD clinical trials testing semagacestat in mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We assessed the relationships between informant replacement and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Using generalized estimating equations, we assessed bias and variability using mean (bias) and mean absolute (variance) change in ADCS-ADL between successive visits as outcomes. Both models adjusted for a priori–specified potential confounding variables including participant sex, age, informant type, trial, time, previous ADCS-ADL score, and region. To analyze the impact on end-of-study change-from-baseline results, we used an analysis of covariance model to estimate the association between replacement and end-of-study change-from-baseline in ADCS-ADL, in which we adjusted for participant sex, age, informant type, trial, baseline measurement, and region. We conducted an <i>F</i>-test to compare the variances of this change.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> RESULTS</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among <i>N</i> = 2637 randomized participants, 69 participants (2.6%) experienced 78 occurrences of replacement. For visits standardized to be 3 months apart, the difference in mean between-visit change in ADCS-ADL was approximately −1.61 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.79, 0.57; <i>P</i> = 0.147), comparing participants who experienced replacement to similar participants who had stable informants. The difference in the mean between-visit absolute change was approximately 2.02 points (95% CI: 0.34, 3.70; <i>P</i> = 0.019). We did not estimate a statistically significant difference in end-of-study change-from-baseline (Est. = −0.70 points; 95% CI: −5.88, 4.48; <i>P</i> = 0.790) or a significant ratio of variances (Est. = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.67, 2.28; <i>P</i> = 0.600) for participants with replacement compared to those with stable informants.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> DISCUSSION</h3>\\n \\n <p>Informant replacement was associated with increased between-visit variability but had limited impact on overall trial outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Highlights</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>Informant replacement occurred in 2.6% of participants in these industry trials.</li>\\n \\n <li>Informant replacement was associated with increased variance in acute Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living reporting.</li>\\n \\n <li>Informant replacement had a limited impact on overall change-from-baseline outcomes.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions\",\"volume\":\"10 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/trc2.70009\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.70009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.70009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在阿尔茨海默病(AD)临床试验中,参与者必须与完成验证研究工具的研究伙伴一起注册。我们假设在工业赞助的试验中,试验中期信息提供者替代会影响研究数据。方法:我们对两项行业资助的阿尔茨海默病临床试验进行了回顾性分析,该试验测试了semagacestat治疗轻中度阿尔茨海默病痴呆。我们评估了信息提供者替代与阿尔茨海默病日常生活合作研究活动(ADCS-ADL)评分之间的关系。使用广义估计方程,我们使用连续访问期间ADCS-ADL的平均(偏差)和平均绝对(方差)变化作为结果来评估偏倚和可变性。两个模型都调整了优先指定的潜在混淆变量,包括参与者性别、年龄、被调查者类型、试验、时间、以前的ADCS-ADL评分和地区。为了分析对研究结束时基线变化结果的影响,我们使用协方差分析模型来估计ADCS-ADL中替代和研究结束时基线变化之间的关联,其中我们调整了参与者的性别、年龄、信息提供者类型、试验、基线测量和地区。我们进行了f检验来比较这一变化的方差。结果:在N = 2637名随机参与者中,69名参与者(2.6%)经历了78次置换。对于标准化为间隔3个月的就诊,ADCS-ADL的平均就诊间变化差异约为- 1.61点(95%置信区间[CI]: - 3.79, 0.57;P = 0.147),将经历替代的参与者与具有稳定举报人的类似参与者进行比较。两次访问之间的平均绝对变化的差异约为2.02点(95% CI: 0.34, 3.70;p = 0.019)。我们没有估计研究结束时基线变化有统计学显著差异(Est = - 0.70点;95% ci:−5.88,4.48;P = 0.790)或显著的方差比(Est = 1.13;95% ci: 0.67, 2.28;P = 0.600)。信息替代与就诊间变异性增加相关,但对总体试验结果的影响有限。在这些行业试验中,有2.6%的参与者出现了信息替代。信息提供者替代与急性阿尔茨海默病日常生活合作研究活动报告的变异增加相关。信息提供者替代对总体基线变化结果的影响有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Impacts of informant replacement in two industry-sponsored Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

Impacts of informant replacement in two industry-sponsored Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

In Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials, participants must enroll with a study partner informant who completes validated study instruments. We hypothesized that mid-trial informant replacement impacts study data in industry-sponsored trials.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of two industry-sponsored AD clinical trials testing semagacestat in mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We assessed the relationships between informant replacement and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Using generalized estimating equations, we assessed bias and variability using mean (bias) and mean absolute (variance) change in ADCS-ADL between successive visits as outcomes. Both models adjusted for a priori–specified potential confounding variables including participant sex, age, informant type, trial, time, previous ADCS-ADL score, and region. To analyze the impact on end-of-study change-from-baseline results, we used an analysis of covariance model to estimate the association between replacement and end-of-study change-from-baseline in ADCS-ADL, in which we adjusted for participant sex, age, informant type, trial, baseline measurement, and region. We conducted an F-test to compare the variances of this change.

RESULTS

Among N = 2637 randomized participants, 69 participants (2.6%) experienced 78 occurrences of replacement. For visits standardized to be 3 months apart, the difference in mean between-visit change in ADCS-ADL was approximately −1.61 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: −3.79, 0.57; P = 0.147), comparing participants who experienced replacement to similar participants who had stable informants. The difference in the mean between-visit absolute change was approximately 2.02 points (95% CI: 0.34, 3.70; P = 0.019). We did not estimate a statistically significant difference in end-of-study change-from-baseline (Est. = −0.70 points; 95% CI: −5.88, 4.48; P = 0.790) or a significant ratio of variances (Est. = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.67, 2.28; P = 0.600) for participants with replacement compared to those with stable informants.

DISCUSSION

Informant replacement was associated with increased between-visit variability but had limited impact on overall trial outcomes.

Highlights

  • Informant replacement occurred in 2.6% of participants in these industry trials.
  • Informant replacement was associated with increased variance in acute Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living reporting.
  • Informant replacement had a limited impact on overall change-from-baseline outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
2.10%
发文量
134
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer''s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions (TRCI) is a peer-reviewed, open access,journal from the Alzheimer''s Association®. The journal seeks to bridge the full scope of explorations between basic research on drug discovery and clinical studies, validating putative therapies for aging-related chronic brain conditions that affect cognition, motor functions, and other behavioral or clinical symptoms associated with all forms dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish findings from diverse domains of research and disciplines to accelerate the conversion of abstract facts into practical knowledge: specifically, to translate what is learned at the bench into bedside applications. The journal seeks to publish articles that go beyond a singular emphasis on either basic drug discovery research or clinical research. Rather, an important theme of articles will be the linkages between and among the various discrete steps in the complex continuum of therapy development. For rapid communication among a multidisciplinary research audience involving the range of therapeutic interventions, TRCI will consider only original contributions that include feature length research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, brief reports, narrative reviews, commentaries, letters, perspectives, and research news that would advance wide range of interventions to ameliorate symptoms or alter the progression of chronic neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish on topics related to medicine, geriatrics, neuroscience, neurophysiology, neurology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, bioinformatics, pharmaco-genetics, regulatory issues, health economics, pharmacoeconomics, and public health policy as these apply to preclinical and clinical research on therapeutics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信