Cargando…

Potential implications of practice effects in Alzheimer's disease prevention trials

INTRODUCTION: Practice effects (PEs) present a potential confound in clinical trials with cognitive outcomes. A single-blind placebo run-in design, with repeated cognitive outcome assessments before randomization to treatment, can minimize effects of practice on trial outcome. METHODS: We investigat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jacobs, Diane M., Ard, M. Colin, Salmon, David P., Galasko, Douglas R., Bondi, Mark W., Edland, Steven D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5671629/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29124111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2017.08.010
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Practice effects (PEs) present a potential confound in clinical trials with cognitive outcomes. A single-blind placebo run-in design, with repeated cognitive outcome assessments before randomization to treatment, can minimize effects of practice on trial outcome. METHODS: We investigated the potential implications of PEs in Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using placebo arm data from the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study donepezil/vitamin E trial in mild cognitive impairment. Frequent ADAS-Cog measurements early in the trial allowed us to compare two competing trial designs: a 19-month trial with randomization after initial assessment, versus a 15-month trial with a 4-month single-blind placebo run-in and randomization after the second administration of the ADAS-Cog. Standard power calculations assuming a mixed-model repeated-measure analysis plan were used to calculate sample size requirements for a hypothetical future trial designed to detect a 50% slowing of cognitive decline. RESULTS: On average, ADAS-Cog 13 scores improved at first follow-up, consistent with a PE and progressively worsened thereafter. The observed change for a 19-month trial (1.18 points) was substantively smaller than that for a 15-month trial with 4-month run-in (1.79 points). To detect a 50% slowing in progression under the standard design (i.e., a 0.59 point slowing), a future trial would require 3.4 times more subjects than would be required to detect the comparable percent slowing (i.e., 0.90 points) with the run-in design. DISCUSSION: Assuming the improvement at first follow-up observed in this trial represents PEs, the rate of change from the second assessment forward is a more accurate representation of symptom progression in this population and is the appropriate reference point for describing treatment effects characterized as percent slowing of symptom progression; failure to accommodate this leads to an oversized clinical trial. We conclude that PEs are an important potential consideration when planning future trials.