E Ray Dorsey1, Charles Venuto1, Vinayak Venkataraman2, Denzil A Harris3, Karl Kieburtz4. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York2Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 2. currently a medical student at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York2Center for Human Experimental Therapeutics, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York4Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Roche.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: New technologies are rapidly reshaping health care. However, their effect on drug development to date generally has been limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate disease modeling and simulation, alternative study design, novel objective measures, virtual research visits, and enhanced participant engagement and to examine their potential effects as methods and tools on clinical trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted a systematic search of relevant terms on PubMed (disease modeling and clinical trials; adaptive design, clinical trials, and neurology; Internet, clinical trials, and neurology; and telemedicine, clinical trials, and neurology), references of previous publications, and our files. The search encompassed articles published from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2014, and produced 7976 articles, of which 22 were determined to be relevant and are included in this review. FINDINGS: Few of these new methods and technologies have been applied to neurology clinical trials. Clinical outcomes, including cognitive and stroke outcomes, increasingly are captured remotely. Other therapeutic areas have successfully implemented many of these tools and technologies, including web-enabled clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Increased use of new tools and approaches in future clinical trials can enhance the design, improve the assessment, and engage participants in the evaluation of novel therapies for neurologic disorders.
IMPORTANCE: New technologies are rapidly reshaping health care. However, their effect on drug development to date generally has been limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate disease modeling and simulation, alternative study design, novel objective measures, virtual research visits, and enhanced participant engagement and to examine their potential effects as methods and tools on clinical trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted a systematic search of relevant terms on PubMed (disease modeling and clinical trials; adaptive design, clinical trials, and neurology; Internet, clinical trials, and neurology; and telemedicine, clinical trials, and neurology), references of previous publications, and our files. The search encompassed articles published from January 1, 2000, through November 30, 2014, and produced 7976 articles, of which 22 were determined to be relevant and are included in this review. FINDINGS: Few of these new methods and technologies have been applied to neurology clinical trials. Clinical outcomes, including cognitive and stroke outcomes, increasingly are captured remotely. Other therapeutic areas have successfully implemented many of these tools and technologies, including web-enabled clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Increased use of new tools and approaches in future clinical trials can enhance the design, improve the assessment, and engage participants in the evaluation of novel therapies for neurologic disorders.
Authors: C L Pulliam; S R Eichenseer; C G Goetz; O Waln; C B Hunter; J Jankovic; D E Vaillancourt; J P Giuffrida; D A Heldman Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Gustavo Saposnik; Mathew J Reeves; S Claiborne Johnston; Philip M W Bath; Bruce Ovbiagele Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Caroline M Tanner; Cheryl C Meng; Bernard Ravina; Anthony Lang; Roger Kurlan; Kenneth Marek; David Oakes; John Seibyl; Emily Flagg; Lisa Gauger; Dolores D Guest; Christopher G Goetz; Karl Kieburtz; Diane DiEuliis; Stanley Fahn; Robin A Elliott; Ira Shoulson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Sarah J Tabrizi; Rachael I Scahill; Gail Owen; Alexandra Durr; Blair R Leavitt; Raymund A Roos; Beth Borowsky; Bernhard Landwehrmeyer; Chris Frost; Hans Johnson; David Craufurd; Ralf Reilmann; Julie C Stout; Douglas R Langbehn Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Christopher A Beck; Mary Adams; Gary Chadwick; Elisabeth A de Blieck; Colleen McCallum; Leslie Briner; Lisa Deuel; Anthony Clarke; Rick Stewart; Ira Shoulson Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-12
Authors: Petra Kaufmann; John L P Thompson; Gilberto Levy; Richard Buchsbaum; Jeremy Shefner; Lisa S Krivickas; Jonathan Katz; Yvonne Rollins; Richard J Barohn; Carlayne E Jackson; Ezgi Tiryaki; Catherine Lomen-Hoerth; Carmel Armon; Rup Tandan; Stacy A Rudnicki; Kourosh Rezania; Robert Sufit; Alan Pestronk; Steven P Novella; Terry Heiman-Patterson; Edward J Kasarskis; Erik P Pioro; Jacqueline Montes; Rachel Arbing; Darleen Vecchio; Alexandra Barsdorf; Hiroshi Mitsumoto; Bruce Levin Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Alistair M Glidden; Melissa R Holloway; Gretchen L Birbeck; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Philip Coran; Jennifer C Goldsack; Cheryl A Grandinetti; Jessie P Bakker; Marisa Bolognese; E Ray Dorsey; Kaveeta Vasisht; Adam Amdur; Christopher Dell; Jonathan Helfgott; Matthew Kirchoff; Christopher J Miller; Ashish Narayan; Dharmesh Patel; Barry Peterson; Ernesto Ramirez; Drew Schiller; Thomas Switzer; Liz Wing; Annemarie Forrest; Aiden Doherty Journal: Digit Biomark Date: 2019-11-06
Authors: Elsa Shapiro; Jessica Bernstein; Heather R Adams; Ann J Barbier; Teresa Buracchio; Peter Como; Kathleen A Delaney; Florian Eichler; Jonathan C Goldsmith; Melissa Hogan; Sarrit Kovacs; Jonathan W Mink; Joanne Odenkirchen; Melissa A Parisi; Alison Skrinar; Susan E Waisbren; Andrew E Mulberg Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: Shayne N Ragbeer; Erika F Augustine; Jonathan W Mink; Alyssa R Thatcher; Amy E Vierhile; Heather R Adams Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 1.987