A comparison of adherence with minocycline treatment in Parkinson's disease and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials

Background: Little is known about the effects on patient adherence when the same study drug is administered in the same dose in two populations with two different diseases in two different clinical trials. The Minocycline in Rheumatoid Arthritis (MIRA) trial and the NIH Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's disease (NET-PD) Futility Study I provide a unique opportunity to do the above and to compare methods measuring adherence. This study may increase understanding of the influence of disease and adverse events on patient adherence and will provide insights to investigators selecting adherence assessment methods in clinical trials of minocycline and other drugs in future.^ Methods: Minocycline adherence by pill count and the effect of adverse events was compared in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials using multivariable linear regression. Within the MIRA trial, agreement between assay and pill count was compared. The association of adverse events with assay adherence was examined using multivariable logistic regression.^ Results: Adherence derived from pill count in the MIRA and NET-PD FS1 trials did not differ significantly. Adverse events potentially related to minocycline did not appear useful to predict minocycline adherence. In the MIRA trial, adherence measured by pill count appears higher than adherence measured by assay. Agreement between pill count and assay was poor (kappa statistic = 0.25).^ Limitations: Trial and disease are completely confounded and hence the independent effect of disease on adherence to minocycline treatment cannot be studied.^ Conclusion: Simple pill count may be preferred over assay in the minocycline clinical trials to measure adherence. Assays may be less sensitive in a clinical setting where appointments are not scheduled in relation to medication administration time, given assays depend on many pharmacokinetic and instrument-related factors. However, pill count can be manipulated by the patient. Another study suggested that self-report method is more sensitive than pill count method in differentiating adherence from non-adherence. An effect of medication-related adverse events on adherence could not be detected.^

Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey.

BACKGROUND: A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries. METHODS: We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed. RESULTS: Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's. CONCLUSION: In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.

OMERACT-OARSI Initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited.

Background: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient's global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization. Objective: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization. Methods: Data driven approach: (1) Two databases were considered The 'elaboration' database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated and The 'revisit' database. (2) Six different scenarios were evaluated: The two formal OARSI sets of criteria Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the 'revisit' database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios. Experts' opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios). Results: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 CA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 CA patients were evaluated in the 'elaboration' and the 'revisit' databases respectively. The variability of the performances observed in the 'revisit' database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria. Experts' opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the CA localization. Conclusion: This data driven and experts' opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for CA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of CA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT - OARSI set of criteria. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The comprehensive osteoarthritis test: a simple index for measurement of treatment effects in clinical trials

Objective. To assess the measurement properties of a simple index of symptom severity in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hips and knees. Methods. Both the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the proposed new Comprehensive Osteoarthritis Test (COAT) instrument were completed weekly by 125 subjects in the context of a randomized, 12-week, 3 parallel-arm clinical trial. The reliabilities of the various scales were assessed on a weekly basis by use of Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The validity of the COAT total scale was assessed by correlation with the WOMAC total scale on a weekly basis with correlation coefficients, and in terms of the correlations between subject-level intercepts and slopes over time. The relative responsiveness of the WOMAC and COAT total scales was assessed using a multilevel (longitudinal) multivariate (WOMAC, COAT) linear model. Results. The WOMAC and COAT total scales were highly reliable (mean over weeks: WOMAC alpha = 0.98; COAT alpha = 0.97). The correlations between the WOMAC and COAT scales were very high (mean over weeks = 0.92; subject-level intercepts = 0.91, slopes = 0.88). The COAT total scale was significantly more responsive than the WOMAC total scale in the active treatment (34.8% improvement vs 26.8%; p = 0.002). Conclusion. The COAT total scale is simple to administer, reliable, valid, and responsive to treatment effects.