Search

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is associated with persistent impairments in adaptive abilities across multiple domains. These social, personal, and communicative impairments become increasingly pronounced with development, and are present regardless of IQ. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland‐II) is the most commonly used instrument for quantifying these impairments, but minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) on Vineland‐II scores have not been rigorously established in ASD. We pooled data from several consortia/registries (EU‐AIMS LEAP study, ABIDE‐I, ABIDE‐II, INFOR, Simons Simplex Collection and Autism Treatment Network [ATN]) and clinical investigations and trials (Stanford, Yale, Roche) resulting in a data set of over 9,000 individuals with ASD. Two approaches were used to estimate MCIDs: distribution‐based methods and anchor‐based methods. Distribution‐based MCID [d‐MCID] estimates included the standard error of the measurement, as well as one‐fifth and one‐half of the covariate‐adjusted standard deviation (both cross‐sectionally and longitudinally). Anchor‐based MCID [a‐MCID] estimates include the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of severity on the Vineland‐II score, the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of longitudinal improvement category on Vineland‐II change, the Vineland‐II change score maximally differentiating clinical impressions of minimal versus no improvement, and equipercentile equating. Across strata, the Vineland‐II Adaptive Behavior Composite standardized score MCID estimates range from 2.01 to 3.2 for distribution‐based methods, and from 2.42 to 3.75 for sample‐size‐weighted anchor‐based methods. Lower Vineland‐II standardized score MCID estimates were observed for younger and more cognitively impaired populations. These MCID estimates enable users of Vineland‐II to assess both the statistical and clinical significance of any observed change. Autism Res2018, 11: 270–283. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Lay Summary: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd edition; Vineland‐II) is the most widely used scale for assessing day‐to‐day “adaptive” skills. Yet, it is unknown how much Vineland‐II scores must change for those changes to be regarded as clinically significant. We pooled data from over 9,000 individuals with ASD to show that changes of 2–3.75 points on the Vineland‐II Composite score represent the “minimal clinically‐important difference.” These estimates will help evaluate the benefits of potential new treatments for ASD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper illustrates aspects of data monitoring of clinical trials in the pharmaceutical industry. Formal interim analyses are performed at least in part to address the question of whether the trial should proceed or whether there should be an early termination of the trial. For formal interim analyses, frequently independent data and safety monitoring committees are utilized for monitoring clinical trials, and adjustments to nominal significance levels for test statistics are required. Various statistical methods developed during the last fifteen years are utilized. Administrative interim analyses are those analyses that are performed without any intention to stop the trial as a consequence of those analyses. For administrative interim analyses, adjustments to significance levels may not be required, but results must still be carefully interpreted. Regardless of the interim analyses performed, it is critical that the plans for interim analyses be identified in the study protocol, and the dissemination of interim results be carefully restricted. The following clinical trials sponsored by Merck Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories (MSDRL) will illustrate these points: CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS II; 4S; Haemophilus influenza type b efficacy trial; famotidine in upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and a phase II analgesic study. It is anticipated that data monitoring and interim analysis activities will increase for future clinical trials due to the availability of appropriate statistical methods and improved data management systems.

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy of famotidine 40 mg administered at bedtime (HS), 20 mg given twice daily (BID), and placebo to relieve heartburn and to heal endoscopically documented esophageal erosions or ulcerations. A total of 338 patients were randomized: 135 to receive famotidine 40 mg HS, 137 to receive famotidine 20 mg BID, and 66 to receive placebo. In the group given famotidine 20 mg BID, there was a significantly greater proportion of patients with complete relief of daytime heartburn, and both famotidine groups demonstrated statistically significant advantages over placebo in global scores or by successful outcome. Antacid consumption was significantly reduced in the group given famotidine 20 mg BID as compared with placebo. Both famotidine regimens resulted in a significantly greater proportion of patients with complete endoscopic healing than placebo, with the BID dosing being numerically superior to the 40-mg HS dose.