OBJECTIVE: To use a historical placebo control design to determine whether lithium carbonate slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: A phase II trial was conducted at 10 sites in the Western ALS Study Group using similar dosages (300-450 mg/day), target blood levels (0.3-0.8 mEq/L), outcome measures, and trial duration (13 months) as the positive trial. However, taking riluzole was not a requirement for study entry. Placebo outcomes in patients matched for baseline features from a large database of recent clinical trials, showing stable rates of decline over the past 9 years, were used as historical controls. RESULTS: The mean rate of decline of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised was greater in 107 patients taking lithium carbonate (-1.20/month, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.41 to -0.98) than that in 249 control patients (-1.01/month, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.92, p = 0.04). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures (forced vital capacity, time to failure, and quality of life), but there were more adverse events in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of therapeutic benefit and safety concerns, taken together with similar results from 2 other recent trials, weighs against the use of lithium carbonate in patients with ALS. The absence of drift over time and the availability of a large database of patients for selecting a matched historical control group suggest that use of historical controls may result in more efficient phase II trials for screening putative ALS therapeutic agents. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provided Class IV evidence that lithium carbonate does not slow the rate of decline of function in patients with ALS over 13 months.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To use a historical placebo control design to determine whether lithium carbonate slows progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: A phase II trial was conducted at 10 sites in the Western ALS Study Group using similar dosages (300-450 mg/day), target blood levels (0.3-0.8 mEq/L), outcome measures, and trial duration (13 months) as the positive trial. However, taking riluzole was not a requirement for study entry. Placebo outcomes in patients matched for baseline features from a large database of recent clinical trials, showing stable rates of decline over the past 9 years, were used as historical controls. RESULTS: The mean rate of decline of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised was greater in 107 patients taking lithium carbonate (-1.20/month, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.41 to -0.98) than that in 249 control patients (-1.01/month, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.92, p = 0.04). There were no differences in secondary outcome measures (forced vital capacity, time to failure, and quality of life), but there were more adverse events in the treated group. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of therapeutic benefit and safety concerns, taken together with similar results from 2 other recent trials, weighs against the use of lithium carbonate in patients with ALS. The absence of drift over time and the availability of a large database of patients for selecting a matched historical control group suggest that use of historical controls may result in more efficient phase II trials for screening putative ALS therapeutic agents. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provided Class IV evidence that lithium carbonate does not slow the rate of decline of function in patients with ALS over 13 months.
Authors: Merit E Cudkowicz; Jeremy M Shefner; David A Schoenfeld; Hui Zhang; Katrin I Andreasson; Jeffrey D Rothstein; Daniel B Drachman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: G J Groeneveld; Jan H Veldink; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Sandra Kalmijn; Cornelis Beijer; Marianne de Visser; John H J Wokke; Hessel Franssen; Leonard H van den Berg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: J M Shefner; M E Cudkowicz; D Schoenfeld; T Conrad; J Taft; M Chilton; L Urbinelli; M Qureshi; H Zhang; A Pestronk; J Caress; P Donofrio; E Sorenson; W Bradley; C Lomen-Hoerth; E Pioro; K Rezania; M Ross; R Pascuzzi; T Heiman-Patterson; R Tandan; H Mitsumoto; J Rothstein; T Smith-Palmer; D MacDonald; D Burke Journal: Neurology Date: 2004-11-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: R Miller; W Bradley; M Cudkowicz; J Hubble; V Meininger; H Mitsumoto; D Moore; H Pohlmann; D Sauer; V Silani; M Strong; M Swash; E Vernotica Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jeffrey M Statland; Dan Moore; Yunxia Wang; Maureen Walsh; Tahseen Mozaffar; Lauren Elman; Sharon P Nations; Hiroshi Mitsumoto; J Americo Fernandes; David Saperstein; Ghazala Hayat; Laura Herbelin; Chafic Karam; Jonathan Katz; Heather M Wilkins; Abdulbaki Agbas; Russell H Swerdlow; Regina M Santella; Mazen M Dimachkie; Richard J Barohn Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Jose Manuel Vidal-Taboada; Alan Lopez-Lopez; Maria Salvado; Laura Lorenzo; Cecilia Garcia; Nicole Mahy; Manuel J Rodríguez; Josep Gamez Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Jigar R Desai; Edward A Bowen; Mark M Danielson; Rajasekhar R Allam; Michael N Cantor Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497