Search

Abstract We developed a video-based tool to quantitatively assess the Glabellar Tap Reflex (GTR) in patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (iPD) as well as healthy age-matched participants. We also video-graphically assessed the effect of dopaminergic medication on the GTR in iPD patients, as well as the frequency and blinking duration of reflex and non-reflex blinks. The Glabellar Tap Reflex is a clinical sign seen in patients e.g. suffering from iPD. Reliable tools to quantify this sign are lacking. Methods: We recorded the GTR in 11 iPD patients and 12 healthy controls (HC) with a consumer-grade camera at a framerate of at least 180 images/s. In these videos, reflex and non-reflex blinks were analyzed for blink count and blinking duration in an automated fashion. Results: With our setup, the GTR can be extracted from high-framerate cameras using landmarks of the MediaPipe face algorithm. iPD patients did not habituate to the GTR; dopaminergic medication did not alter that response. iPD patients’ non-reflex blinks were higher in frequency and higher in blinking duration (width at half prominence); dopaminergic medication decreased the median frequency (Before medication—HC: p

We developed a video-based tool to quantitatively assess the Glabellar Tap Reflex (GTR) in patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD) as well as healthy age-matched participants. We also video-graphically assessed the effect of dopaminergic medication on the GTR in iPD patients, as well as the frequency and blinking duration of reflex and non-reflex blinks. The Glabellar Tap Reflex is a clinical sign seen in patients e.g. suffering from iPD. Reliable tools to quantify this sign are lacking. Methods: We recorded the GTR in 11 iPD patients and 12 healthy controls (HC) with a consumer-grade camera at a framerate of at least 180 images/s. In these videos, reflex and non-reflex blinks were analyzed for blink count and blinking duration in an automated fashion. Results: With our setup, the GTR can be extracted from high-framerate cameras using landmarks of the MediaPipe face algorithm. iPD patients did not habituate to the GTR; dopaminergic medication did not alter that response. iPD patients' non-reflex blinks were higher in frequency and higher in blinking duration (width at half prominence); dopaminergic medication decreased the median frequency (Before medication—HC: p < 0.001, After medication—HC: p = 0.0026) and decreased the median blinking duration (Before medication—HC: p = 0.8594, After medication—HC: p = 0.6943)—both in the direction of HC. Conclusion: We developed a quantitative, video-based tool to assess the GTR and other blinking-specific parameters in HC and iPD patients. Further studies could compare the video data to electromyogram (EMG) data for accuracy and comparability, as well as evaluate the specificity of the GTR in patients with other neurodegenerative disorders, in whom the GTR can also be present. Significance: The video-based detection of the blinking parameters allows for unobtrusive measurement in patients, a safer and more comfortable option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: In pediatric oncology, a Phase II trial often utilizes a safety run-in phase followed by an efficacy phase that enrolls at the dose level selected based on the safety run-in. Different from a Phase I trial, a Phase II safety run-in often assesses a very small number of dose levels. In the context of a safety run-in that assesses two or three dose levels, this article aims to compare three design methods, including the algorithm-based designs 3+3 and Rolling 6, and the model-assisted designs such as the Bayesian optimal interval design. Methods: Extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare operating characteristics of the three design methods for a safety run-in with two or three dose levels, varying the starting dose level. Results: The performance of algorithm-based and model-assisted designs can be influenced by selection of the starting dose level, with trials starting at a lower dose level having a higher probability of selecting a low dose or considering all doses as toxic. The impact is larger for 3+3 and Rolling 6 but to a lesser extent for Bayesian optimal interval design. For a safety run-in with two dose levels, using 3+3 or Rolling 6 and starting at the higher dose often lead to similar performance to Bayesian optimal interval design. For safety run-in with three dose levels, starting at the middle dose with 3+3, Rolling 6 or Bayesian optimal interval design is a good compromise between improving correct dose selection and imposing a toxic dose to less patients. Conclusions: Despite being sensitive to the starting dose level, the 3+3, Rolling 6 and Bayesian optimal interval designs overall demonstrate reasonable performance, which can be further improved with wise selection of the starting dose level. The Rolling 6 design remains the recommended design method especially if pharmacokinetics is important or required with this design having the feature of treating six patients per dose level. When designing a safety run-in, selection of a design method or selection of a starting dose should consider both the performance of the design approaches with different choices of a starting dose level and the magnitude of safety concerns with the dose levels under investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: In pediatric oncology, a Phase II trial often utilizes a safety run-in phase followed by an efficacy phase that enrolls at the dose level selected based on the safety run-in. Different from a Phase I trial, a Phase II safety run-in often assesses a very small number of dose levels. In the context of a safety run-in that assesses two or three dose levels, this article aims to compare three design methods, including the algorithm-based designs 3 + 3 and Rolling 6, and the model-assisted designs such as the Bayesian optimal interval design., Methods: Extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare operating characteristics of the three design methods for a safety run-in with two or three dose levels, varying the starting dose level., Results: The performance of algorithm-based and model-assisted designs can be influenced by selection of the starting dose level, with trials starting at a lower dose level having a higher probability of selecting a low dose or considering all doses as toxic. The impact is larger for 3 + 3 and Rolling 6 but to a lesser extent for Bayesian optimal interval design. For a safety run-in with two dose levels, using 3 + 3 or Rolling 6 and starting at the higher dose often lead to similar performance to Bayesian optimal interval design. For safety run-in with three dose levels, starting at the middle dose with 3 + 3, Rolling 6 or Bayesian optimal interval design is a good compromise between improving correct dose selection and imposing a toxic dose to less patients., Conclusions: Despite being sensitive to the starting dose level, the 3 + 3, Rolling 6 and Bayesian optimal interval designs overall demonstrate reasonable performance, which can be further improved with wise selection of the starting dose level. The Rolling 6 design remains the recommended design method especially if pharmacokinetics is important or required with this design having the feature of treating six patients per dose level. When designing a safety run-in, selection of a design method or selection of a starting dose should consider both the performance of the design approaches with different choices of a starting dose level and the magnitude of safety concerns with the dose levels under investigation.

The traditional 3 + 3 design continues to be commonly used for Phase I dose-finding oncology trials, despite increasing criticisms and development of innovative methods. Unfortunately, it is a challenge to convince principal investigators to use novel designs. The goal of this paper is to persuade researchers to break away from 3 + 3 design and provide potential solutions to better designs and implementation strategy. We reviewed the statistical methods for adaptive Phase I designs. The barriers among all the major components of the implementation team have been emphasized and potential solutions have been discussed. Institutional support to the principal investigators and statistician, as well as to other team members is essential to design and implement adaptive trials in academic medical institutions., Competing Interests: Financial & competing interests disclosure L Wei is funded by the NIH (grant numbers: P30CA016058, UM1CA76576, UM1CA186712, R01AG050801, UL1TR002733 and R21AI130485). The authors were partially supported by National Institutes of Health/National center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant UL1TR002733. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript., (© 2019 Lai Wei.)