Search

Background: Participant retention is a key factor that affects clinical trial integrity. Trial protocols estimate attrition as a function of sample size calculations. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an area of active treatment development. We aimed to quantify the association between trial duration and completion rates and provide guidance for estimating attrition in AD trial protocols. Methods: Using the Alzforum and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, we analyzed retention data from 125 mild-to-moderate AD and 12 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) clinical trials. We compared the rates of completion between trial arms (active vs. control) and ran regression models to test the hypothesis that trials with longer study duration have lower trial completion using all available data and restricting to placebo data. Our primary outcome was the odds of trial completion for a 6-month increase in trial duration. From the regression model, we estimated the proportion of participants completing 6-, 12-, and 18-month trials. Results: We found that 21 (17%) mild-to-moderate AD trials and 1 (8%) MCI trial demonstrated greater dropout in treatment compared to placebo arms. For every 6-month increase in trial duration, there was a 27% decrease in the odds of trial completion (OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.66, 0.81; p < 0.001) among participants in mild-to-moderate AD trials and a 55% decrease (OR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.36, 0.57; p < 0.001) among participants in MCI trials. The proportion of participants in the placebo group completing 6-, 12-, and 18-month trials were estimated to be 85.2%, 80.0%, and 73.3% for mild-to-moderate AD trials and 91.9%, 84.2%, and 71.3% for MCI trials, respectively. Conclusions: Longer duration trials may be underpowered to demonstrate estimated treatment effects and may suffer from a greater risk of bias than do shorter trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely accrual of a representative sample is a key factor in whether Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials successfully answer the scientific questions under study. Studies in other fields have observed that, over time, recruitment to trials has become increasingly reliant on larger numbers of sites, with declines in the average per-site recruitment rate. Here, we examined the trends in recruitment over a 20-year period of NIH-funded AD clinical trials conducted by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), a temporally consistent network of sites devoted to interventional research. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses of eleven ADCS randomized clinical trials. To examine the recruitment planning, we calculated the expected number of participants to be enrolled per site for each trial. To examine the actual trial recruitment rates, we quantified the number of participants enrolled per site per month. Results: No effects of time were observed on recruitment planning or overall recruitment rates across trials. No trial achieved an overall recruitment rate greater than one subject per site per month. We observed the fastest recruitment rates in trials with no competition and the slowest in trials that overlapped in time. The highest recruitment rates were consistently seen early within trials and declined over the course of studies. Conclusions: Trial recruitment projections should plan for fewer than one participant randomized per site per month and consider the number of other AD trials being conducted concurrently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials now test promising therapies in the preclinical stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Participant willingness to enroll in different types of preclinical AD trials is understudied and whether the FDA approval of aducanumab affected these attitudes is unknown.Objective: To evaluate preferences toward three preclinical AD trial scenarios and whether the FDA approval of aducanumab changed willingness to participate among potential trial participants.Methods: Through an electronic survey, we asked enrollees in a recruitment registry age 50-79 to rate their willingness (using a 6-point Likert scale) to enroll in three hypothetical preclinical AD trial scenarios: an in-clinic infused monoclonal antibody intervention, a home-infused monoclonal antibody intervention, and an oral BACE inhibitor intervention. We administered the survey before and after the FDA approval of aducanumab. We used a generalized estimating equation model to assess group differences in preference for the trial scenarios. We used a paired t-test to determine if willingness to participate (using total willingness across three scenarios as the outcome) changed after the FDA decision.Results: At baseline, the mean participant willingness was highest in the in-clinic infusion scenario. There was no significant change in willingness to participate, overall, after the FDA decision. Participants who were independently aware of the FDA's decision (prior to the second survey) demonstrated reduced willingness to participate; participants unaware of the FDA decision demonstrated no change.Conclusion: Willingness to participate in preclinical AD trials may have been negatively affected by the FDA's decision to approve aducanumab among those aware of the decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Best approaches for retaining research participants in Alzheimer's disease cohort studies are understudied.Objective: Using data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set, we evaluated the associations of unique strategies with participant retention across Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers and explored potential effect modification by race, ethnicity and diagnostic group.Methods: We examined retention at the first follow-up visit among participants enrolled during 2015-2017. Structured surveys ascertained 95 retention tactics among 12 strategies. Strategy-specific summary scores were created based on the number of implemented tactics for each strategy and grouped into tertiles. Generalized estimating equations were constructed to evaluate associations between strategy scores and the odds of retention, controlling for age, sex, education, study partner type, marital status, visit length, battery length, diagnostic group, race and ethnicity. Separate models were stratified by race, ethnicity and diagnostic group. Effect modification was formally tested with interaction terms.Results: Among 5,715 total participants enrolled, 4,515 were Non-Hispanic White (79%), 335 were Hispanic/Latino (6%), 651 were Non-Hispanic Black (11%), and 214 were Non-Hispanic Asian (4%). Compared to the lowest tertile of scores, the highest tertile of scores involving improvement in study personnel and communication of study requirements and details were associated with 61% higher odds of retention in fully adjusted models (adjusted Odds Ratios [aOR] = 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.05-2.47 and aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.03-2.35, respectively). We did not find evidence for effect modification.Conclusion: In the setting of limited resources, specific retention strategies may be more valuable than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meta-analyses on the effects of probiotics on specific gastrointestinal diseases have generally shown positive effects on disease prevention and treatment; however, the relative efficacy of probiotic use for treatment and prevention across different gastrointestinal diseases, with differing etiology and mechanisms of action, has not been addressed. Methods/Principal Findings: We included randomized controlled trials in humans that used a specified probiotic in the treatment or prevention of Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, Traveler's Diarrhea, or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Random effects models were used to evaluate efficacy as pooled relative risks across the eight diseases as well as across probiotic species, single vs. multiple species, patient ages, dosages, and length of treatment. Probiotics had a positive significant effect across all eight gastrointestinal diseases with a relative risk of 0.58 (95% (CI) 0.51-0.65). Six of the eight diseases: Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, and Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, showed positive significant effects. Traveler's Diarrhea and Necrotizing Enterocolitis did not show significant effects of probiotcs. Of the 11 species and species mixtures, all showed positive significant effects except for Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium infantis. Across all diseases and probiotic species, positive significant effects of probiotics were observed for all age groups, single vs. multiple species, and treatment lengths. Conclusions/Significance: Probiotics are generally beneficial in treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal diseases. Efficacy was not observed for Traveler's Diarrhea or Necrotizing Enterocolitis or for the probiotic species L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, and B. infantis. When choosing to use probiotics in the treatment or prevention of gastrointestinal disease, the type of disease and probiotic species (strain) are the most important factors to take into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]