The Evolution of Randomized Clinical Trial Designs to Assess Therapeutics in Alzheimer Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: The success of recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for Alzheimer disease (AD), particularly those focusing on anti-amyloid therapies, has been discussed at length. However, the evolution of RCT design features for AD that preceded this success remain underexplored. Objective: To describe temporal changes in the features of RCT design for interventions in AD. Evidence Review: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2025 for phase 2 and 3 AD RCTs published between January 1992 and December 2024. RCTs that investigated an intervention for AD, with a placebo or standard-of-care control group, were included. Four assessors independently reviewed full-text articles to capture study characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of participants and the duration of RCTs as well as the target population, outcomes, and funding were extracted from published reports. These features were analyzed with respect to time using linear regression and χ2 analyses. Results: The study included 203 RCTs with 79 589 participants testing interventions in AD. From 1992 to 2024, the mean sample size increased by 464% for phase 2 RCTs (from 42 to 237), and 50% for phase 3 RCTs (from 632 to 951), while the mean trial duration increased by 188% (from 16 to 46 weeks) for phase 2, and 256% (from 20 to 71 weeks) for phase 3 RCTs. This longer duration of RCTs may be partially attributed by a greater share of disease-modifying rather than symptomatic treatments. Similarly, more recent trials required AD biomarker evidence for enrollment (from 1 of 36 [2.7%] before 2006 to 40 of 76 [52.6%] since 2019). A substantial difference in the type of therapeutics researched was observed, with anti-amyloid and anti-tau RCTs being more likely to be funded by the pharmaceutical industry compared with neurotransmitter or other RCTs (anti-amyloid or anti-tau, 68 of 71 [95.8%]; neurotransmitter, 52 of 69 [77.6%]; other, 33 of 52 [63.5%]). RCT transparency improved, with more frequent data accessibility statements, registered reports, and better reporting on race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This methodology research of AD RCTs highlights substantial changes in key features of AD clinical trials from 1992 to 2024. AD RCTs have become larger and longer, such that they are powered to detect smaller clinical differences. The increased sample sizes and duration should enable the detection of smaller and more slowly occurring outcomes, which may lead to successful RCTs of therapies with slower and more subtle efficacy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».