Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Alzheimer disease randomized clinical trials (RCTs), forcing investigators to make changes in the conduct of such trials while endeavoring to maintain their validity. Changing ongoing RCTs carries risks for biases and threats to validity. To understand the impact of exigent modifications due to COVID-19, we examined several scenarios in symptomatic and disease modification trials that could be made. METHODS: We identified both symptomatic and disease modification Alzheimer disease RCTs as exemplars of those that would be affected by the pandemic and considered the types of changes that sponsors could make to each. We modeled three scenarios for each of the types of trials using existing datasets, adjusting enrollment, follow-ups, and dropouts to examine the potential effects COVID-19-related changes. Simulations were performed that accounted for completion and dropout patterns using linear mixed effects models, modeling time as continuous and categorical. The statistical power of the scenarios was determined. RESULTS: Truncating both symptomatic and disease modification trials led to underpowered trials. By contrast, adapting the trials by extending the treatment period, temporarily stopping treatment, delaying outcomes assessments, and performing remote assessment allowed for increased statistical power nearly to the level originally planned. DISCUSSION: These analyses support the idea that disrupted trials under common scenarios are better continued and extended even in the face of dropouts, treatment disruptions, missing outcomes, and other exigencies and that adaptations can be made that maintain the trials' validity. We suggest some adaptive methods to do this noting that some changes become under-powered to detect the original effect sizes and expected outcomes. These analyses provide insight to better plan trials that are resilient to unexpected changes to the medical, social, and political milieu.

BackgroundLeuco-methylthioninium bis(hydromethanesulfonate; LMTM), a stable reduced form of the methylthioninium moiety, acts as a selective inhibitor of tau protein aggregation both in vitro and in transgenic mouse models. Methylthioninium chloride has previously shown potential efficacy as monotherapy in patients with Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to determine whether LMTM was safe and effective in modifying disease progression in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.MethodsWe did a 15-month, randomised, controlled double-blind, parallel-group trial at 115 academic centres and private research clinics in 16 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and Russia with patients younger than 90 years with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Patients concomitantly using other medicines for Alzheimer's disease were permitted to be included because we considered it infeasible not to allow their inclusion; however, patients using medicines carrying warnings of methaemoglobinaemia were excluded because the oxidised form of methylthioninium in high doses has been shown to induce this condition. We randomly assigned participants (3:3:4) to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, 125 mg LMTM twice a day, or control (4 mg LMTM twice a day to maintain blinding with respect to urine or faecal discolouration) administered as oral tablets. We did the randomisation with an interactive web response system using 600 blocks of length ten, and stratified patients by severity of disease, global region, whether they were concomitantly using Alzheimer's disease-labelled medications, and site PET capability. Participants, their study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout the study. The coprimary outcomes were progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) scales from baseline assessed at week 65 in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689246) and the European Union Clinical Trials Registry (2012-002866-11).FindingsBetween Jan 29, 2013, and June 26, 2014, we recruited and randomly assigned 891 participants to treatment (357 to control, 268 to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, and 266 to 125 mg LMTM twice a day). The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31-7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] -0·02, -1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] -0·43, -2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [-8·22, 95% CI -9·63 to -6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day -0·93, -3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day -0·34, -2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). Gastrointestinal and urinary effects were the most common adverse events with both high doses of LMTM, and the most common causes for discontinuation. Non-clinically significant dose-dependent reductions in haemoglobin concentrations were the most common laboratory abnormality. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities were noted in less than 1% (8/885) of participants.InterpretationThe primary analysis for this study was negative, and the results do not suggest benefit of LMTM as an add-on treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Findings from a recently completed 18-month trial of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease will be reported soon.FundingTauRx Therapeutics.