How to define the preclinical Alzheimer's Disease state in otherwise healthy elderly. How to best select otherwise healthy elderly for clinical trials participation with a disease modifiying... Show moreHow to define the preclinical Alzheimer's Disease state in otherwise healthy elderly. How to best select otherwise healthy elderly for clinical trials participation with a disease modifiying compound. Difference between healthy elderly and subjects in the preclinical AD stage on biomarker level. Difference in cognitive performance in healthy subjects compared to neurodegenerative disease profiles. Show less
Introduction Surgery remains the mainstay for treatment of primary glioblastoma, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Current standard of care during surgery involves the intraoperative use... Show moreIntroduction Surgery remains the mainstay for treatment of primary glioblastoma, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Current standard of care during surgery involves the intraoperative use of image-guidance and 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA). There are multiple other surgical adjuncts available to the neuro-oncology surgeon. However, access to, and usage of these varies widely in UK practice, with limited evidence of their use. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the addition of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) to the standard of care surgery (intraoperative neuronavigation and 5-ALA) impacts on deterioration free survival (DFS). Methods and analysis This is a two-stage, randomised control trial (RCT) consisting of an initial non-randomised cohort study based on the principles of the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up) stage-IIb format, followed by a statistically powered randomised trial comparing the addition of DTI and iUS to the standard of care surgery. A total of 357 patients will be recruited for the RCT. The primary outcome is DFS, defined as the time to either 10-point deterioration in health-related quality of life scores from baseline, without subsequent reversal, progressive disease or death. Ethics and dissemination The trial was registered in the Integrated Research Application System (Ref: 264482) and approved by a UK research and ethics committee (Ref: 20/ LO/0840). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination to participants, patient groups and the wider medical community will use a range of approaches to maximise impact. Show less
Introduction: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and... Show moreIntroduction: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. Methods and analysis: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236979. Show less
Using external controls based on real-world or natural history data (RWD/NHD) for drug evaluations in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is appealing given the challenges of enrolling placebo... Show moreUsing external controls based on real-world or natural history data (RWD/NHD) for drug evaluations in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is appealing given the challenges of enrolling placebo-controlled trials, especially for multi-year trials. Comparisons to external controls, however, face risks of bias due to differences in outcomes between trial and RWD/NHD settings. To assess this bias empirically, we conducted a multi-institution study comparing mean 48-week changes in North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) total score between trial placebo arms and RWD/NHD sources, with and without adjustment for baseline prognostic factors. Analyses used data from three placebo arms (235 48-week intervals, N = 235 patients) and three RWD/NHD sources (348 intervals, N = 202 patients). Differences in mean delta NSAA between placebo arms and RWD/NHD sources were small before adjustment (-1.2 units, 95% CI: [-2.0-0.5]) and were attenuated and no longer statistically significant after adjustment (0.1 units (95% CI: [-0.6, 0.8]). Results were similar whether adjusting using multivariable regression or propensity score matching. This consistency in ANSAA between trial placebo arms and RWD/NHD sources accords with prior findings for the six-minute walk distance, provides a well-validated framework for baseline adjustment of prognostic factors, and supports the suitability of RWD/NHD external controls for drug evaluations in ambulatory DMD. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
Kroon, F.P.B.; Heijde, D. van der; Maxwell, L.J.; Beaton, D.E.; Abishek, A.; Berenbaum, F.; ... ; Kloppenburg, M. 2021
Objective: Physical function is one of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core outcome domains for hand osteoarthritis studies. Our aim was to select appropriate instrument(s) to... Show moreObjective: Physical function is one of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core outcome domains for hand osteoarthritis studies. Our aim was to select appropriate instrument(s) to measure this domain, as part of the development of a core outcome measurement set.Methods: Following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection process, the (function subscale of) the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed for domain match, feasibility, truth and discrimination. Data gathered from available literature, working group and patient surveys, and additional analyses in two hand osteoarthritis cohorts were used to inform a consensus process.Results were summarized in Summary of Measurements Properties tables and reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group. Results: MHQ passed the assessment of domain match and feasibility by the working group and patient research partners. For AUSCAN important limitations in feasibility were noted, but domain match was good. FIHOA did not pass the assessment and was not taken through the follow-up assessment. Based on published literature, reliability and construct/longitudinal validity of both MHQ and AUSCAN fulfilled OMERACT standards. While clinical trial discrimination and thresholds of meaning were good for AUSCAN, results for MHQ were ambiguous.Conclusion: MHQ was provisionally endorsed as OMERACT core outcome measure for the core domain physical function. While AUSCAN may have better metric properties than MHQ, it received provisional endorsement as a second measure of function due to important feasibility issues. A research agenda to merit full endorsement was set. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Buttgereit, T.; Palmowski, A.; Forsat, N.; Boers, M.; Witham, M.D.; Rodondi, N.; ... ; Buttgereit, F. 2021
Background: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers... Show moreBackground: older people remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence generated in younger populations cannot always be generalized to older patients.Objective: to identify key barriers and to discuss solutions to specific issues affecting recruitment and retention of older participants in clinical trials based on experience gained from six current European randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on older people.Methods: a multidisciplinary group of experts including representatives of the six RCTs held two networking conferences and compiled lists of potential barriers and solutions. Every item was subsequently allocated points by each study team according to how important it was perceived to be for their RCTs.Results: the six RCTs enrolled 7,612 older patients. Key barriers to recruitment were impaired health status, comorbidities and diverse health beliefs including priorities within different cultural systems. All trials had to increase the number of recruitment sites. Other measures felt to be effective included the provision of extra time, communication training for the study staff and a re-design of patient information. Key barriers for retention included the presence of severe comorbidities and the occurrence of adverse events. Long study duration, frequent study visits and difficulties accessing the study site were also mentioned. Solutions felt to be effective included spending more time maintaining close contact with the participants, appropriate measures to show appreciation and reimbursement of travel arrangements.Conclusion: recruitment and retention of older patients in trials requires special recognition and a targeted approach. Our results provide scientifically-based practical recommendations for optimizing future studies in this population. Show less
