Search

BackgroundRecruiting to multi-site trials is challenging, particularly when striving to ensure the randomized sample is demographically representative of the larger disease-suffering population. While previous studies have reported disparities by race and ethnicity in enrollment and randomization, they have not typically investigated whether disparities exist in the recruitment process prior to consent. To identify participants most likely to be eligible for a trial, study sites frequently include a prescreening process, generally conducted by telephone, to conserve resources. Collection and analysis of such prescreening data across sites could provide valuable information to improve understanding of recruitment intervention effectiveness, including whether traditionally underrepresented participants are lost prior to screening.MethodsWe developed an infrastructure within the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Alzheimer's Clinical Trials Consortium (ACTC) to centrally collect a subset of prescreening variables. Prior to study-wide implementation in the AHEAD 3-45 study (NCT NCT04468659), an ongoing ACTC trial recruiting older cognitively unimpaired participants, we completed a vanguard phase with seven study sites. Variables collected included age, self-reported sex, self-reported race, self-reported ethnicity, self-reported education, self-reported occupation, zip code, recruitment source, prescreening eligibility status, reason for prescreen ineligibility, and the AHEAD 3-45 participant ID for those who continued to an in-person screening visit after study enrollment.ResultsEach of the sites was able to submit prescreening data. Vanguard sites provided prescreening data on a total of 1029 participants. The total number of prescreened participants varied widely among sites (range 3-611), with the differences driven mainly by the time to receive site approval for the main study. Key learnings instructed design/informatic/procedural changes prior to study-wide launch.ConclusionCentralized capture of prescreening data in multi-site clinical trials is feasible. Identifying and quantifying the impact of central and site recruitment activities, prior to participants signing consent, has the potential to identify and address selection bias, instruct resource use, contribute to effective trial design, and accelerate trial enrollment timelines.

IntroductionThe negative efficacy study examining the γ-secretase inhibitor semagacestat in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) included a number of biomarkers of the disease as well as safety outcomes. We analyzed these data to explore relationships between drug exposure and pharmacodynamic effects and to examine the correlations among outcome measures.MethodsThe study was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of two dose regimens of semagacestat and a placebo administered for 18 months to individuals with mild to moderate AD. Changes in measures of central and peripheral drug activity were compared between the three treatment groups using one-way analysis of variance. The relationship between changes in each of the outcome measures and measures of drug exposure and peripheral pharmacodynamic effect were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient.ResultsAssignment to the active treatment arms was associated with reduction in plasma amyloid-β (Aβ) peptides, increase in ventricular volume, decrease in cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated tau (p-tau) and several other laboratory measures and adverse event categories. Within the active arms, exposure to drug, as indicated by area under the concentration curve (AUC) of blood concentration, was associated with reduction in plasma Aβ peptides and a subset of laboratory changes and adverse event rates. Ventricular volume increase, right hippocampal volume loss and gastrointestinal symptoms were related to change in plasma Aβ peptide but not AUC, supporting a link to inhibition of γ-secretase cleavage of the amyloid precursor protein. Cognitive decline correlated with ventricular expansion and reduction in p-tau.ConclusionThese findings may inform future studies of drugs targeting secretases involved in Aβ generation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00594568. Registered 11 January 2008.

IntroductionTo facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology.MethodsFour similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).ResultsRegions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline.ConclusionsThese data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm.Trial registrationsClinicalTrials.gov NCT00594568 - IDENTITY. Registered 11 January 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00762411 - IDENTITY2. Registered 26 September 2008 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 - EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 - EXPEDITION2. Registered 18 May 2009.

IntroductionMost Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants multinationally. Yet, few data exist to guide investigators and sponsors regarding the types of patients enrolled in these studies and whether participant characteristics vary by region.MethodsWe used data derived from four multinational phase III trials in mild to moderate AD to examine whether regional differences exist with regard to participant demographics, safety reporting, and baseline scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). We assigned 31 participating nations to 7 geographic regions: North America, South America/Mexico, Western Europe/Israel, Eastern Europe/Russia, Australia/South Africa, Asia, and Japan.ResultsNorth America, Western Europe/Israel, and Australia/South Africa enrolled similar proportions of men, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers, and participants with spouse study partners, whereas Asia, Eastern Europe/Russia, and South America/Mexico had lower proportions for these variables. North America and South America/Mexico enrolled older subjects, whereas Asia and South America/Mexico enrolled less-educated participants than the remaining regions. Approved AD therapy use differed among regions (range: 73% to 92%) and was highest in North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Japan. Dual therapy was most frequent in North America (48%). On the MMSE, North America, Western Europe/Israel, Japan, and Australia/South Africa had higher (better) scores, and Asia, South America/Mexico, and Eastern Europe/Russia had lower scores. Eastern Europe/Russia had more impaired ADAS-cog11 scores than all other regions. Eastern Europe/Russia and South America/Mexico had more impaired scores for the ADCS-ADL and the CDR-SB. Mean scores for the CDR-SB in Asia were milder than all regions except Japan. NPI scores were lower in Asia and Japan than in all other regions. Participants in North America and Western Europe/Israel reported more adverse events than those in Eastern Europe/Russia and Japan.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that trial populations differ across geographic regions on most baseline characteristics and that multinational enrollment is associated with sample heterogeneity. The data provide initial guidance with regard to the regional differences that contribute to this heterogeneity and are important to consider when planning global trials.