OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of trial start-up times, high attrition, and poor protocol adherence in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trials. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of start-up times, retention, and protocol adherence was performed on 5 clinical studies conducted by the Northeast ALS Consortium and 50 ALS clinical trials identified by PubMed search. Predictors of start-up times were estimated by accelerated failure time models with random effects. Predictors of retention and protocol deviations were estimated by mixed-model logistic regression. RESULTS: Median times for contract execution and institutional review board (IRB) approval were 105 days and 125 days, respectively. Contract execution was faster at sites with more ongoing trials (p = 0.005), and more full-time (p = 0.006) and experienced (p < 0.001) coordinators. IRB approval was faster at sites with more ongoing trials (p = 0.010) and larger ALS clinics (p = 0.038). Site activation after IRB approval was faster at sites with more full-time (p = 0.038) and experienced (p < 0.001) coordinators. Twenty-two percent of surviving participants withdrew before completing the trial. Better participant functional score at baseline was an independent predictor of trial completion (odds ratio 1.29, p = 0.002) and fewer protocol deviations (odds ratio 0.86, p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Delays in IRB review contribute the most to prolonged trial start-up times, and these timelines are faster in sites with more experienced staff. Strategies to improve protocol adherence and participants' retention may include enrolling people at early disease stages.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of trial start-up times, high attrition, and poor protocol adherence in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) trials. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of start-up times, retention, and protocol adherence was performed on 5 clinical studies conducted by the Northeast ALS Consortium and 50 ALS clinical trials identified by PubMed search. Predictors of start-up times were estimated by accelerated failure time models with random effects. Predictors of retention and protocol deviations were estimated by mixed-model logistic regression. RESULTS: Median times for contract execution and institutional review board (IRB) approval were 105 days and 125 days, respectively. Contract execution was faster at sites with more ongoing trials (p = 0.005), and more full-time (p = 0.006) and experienced (p < 0.001) coordinators. IRB approval was faster at sites with more ongoing trials (p = 0.010) and larger ALS clinics (p = 0.038). Site activation after IRB approval was faster at sites with more full-time (p = 0.038) and experienced (p < 0.001) coordinators. Twenty-two percent of surviving participants withdrew before completing the trial. Better participant functional score at baseline was an independent predictor of trial completion (odds ratio 1.29, p = 0.002) and fewer protocol deviations (odds ratio 0.86, p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Delays in IRB review contribute the most to prolonged trial start-up times, and these timelines are faster in sites with more experienced staff. Strategies to improve protocol adherence and participants' retention may include enrolling people at early disease stages.
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Matthew Baker; Steven K Cheng; Stephen L George; Kathleen S Karas; Stephen McGuire; Gourija S Menon; Jason Reusch; Debbie Sawyer; Maren Scoggins; Amy Wu; Kai Zhou; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan Sandler; Steven Cheng; Joshua Crites; Lori Ferranti; Amy Wu; Robert Gray; Jean MacDonald; Donna Marinucci; Robert Comis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Alyssa Newberry; Paula Sherwood; Allison Hricik; Sarah Bradley; Jean Kuo; Elizabeth Crago; Leslie A Hoffman; Barbara A Given Journal: J Neurosci Nurs Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.230
Authors: Merit Cudkowicz; Michael E Bozik; Evan W Ingersoll; Robert Miller; Hiroshi Mitsumoto; Jeremy Shefner; Dan H Moore; David Schoenfeld; James L Mather; Donald Archibald; Mary Sullivan; Craig Amburgey; Juliet Moritz; Valentin K Gribkoff Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-11-20 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Mary E Cooley; Linda Sarna; Jean K Brown; Roma D Williams; Cynthia Chernecky; Geraldine Padilla; Leda Layo Danao Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Alice J Sheffet; Jenifer H Voeks; Ariane Mackey; William Brooks; Wayne M Clark; Michael D Hill; Virginia J Howard; Susan E Hughes; MeeLee Tom; Mary E Longbottom; Thomas G Brott Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Alisa T Apreleva Kolomeytseva; Lev Brylev; Marziye Eshghi; Zhanna Bottaeva; Jufen Zhang; Jörg C Fachner; Alexander J Street Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2022-04-13
Authors: Haruhiko Banno; Kelly L Andrzejewski; Michael P McDermott; Alyssa Murphy; Madhurima Majumder; Elisabeth A de Blieck; Peggy Auinger; Merit E Cudkowicz; Nazem Atassi Journal: J Huntingtons Dis Date: 2017
Authors: Sabrina Paganoni; Eric A Macklin; Suzanne Hendrix; James D Berry; Michael A Elliott; Samuel Maiser; Chafic Karam; James B Caress; Margaret A Owegi; Adam Quick; James Wymer; Stephen A Goutman; Daragh Heitzman; Terry Heiman-Patterson; Carlayne E Jackson; Colin Quinn; Jeffrey D Rothstein; Edward J Kasarskis; Jonathan Katz; Liberty Jenkins; Shafeeq Ladha; Timothy M Miller; Stephen N Scelsa; Tuan H Vu; Christina N Fournier; Jonathan D Glass; Kristin M Johnson; Andrea Swenson; Namita A Goyal; Gary L Pattee; Patricia L Andres; Suma Babu; Marianne Chase; Derek Dagostino; Samuel P Dickson; Noel Ellison; Meghan Hall; Kent Hendrix; Gale Kittle; Michelle McGovern; Joseph Ostrow; Lindsay Pothier; Rebecca Randall; Jeremy M Shefner; Alexander V Sherman; Eric Tustison; Prasha Vigneswaran; Jason Walker; Hong Yu; James Chan; Janet Wittes; Joshua Cohen; Justin Klee; Kent Leslie; Rudolph E Tanzi; Walter Gilbert; Patrick D Yeramian; David Schoenfeld; Merit E Cudkowicz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 176.079