| Literature DB >> 30261917 |
Elizabeth Finger1,2, Scott Berry3, Jeffrey Cummings4, Kristy Coleman5, Robin Hsiung6, Howard H Feldman7, Adam Boxer8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are currently no treatments for empathy deficits in neuropsychiatric disorders. Acute administration of the hormone oxytocin has been associated with symptomatic improvements across animal models and several neuropsychiatric disorders, but results of the majority of oxytocin randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of longer duration have been negative or inconclusive. This lack of efficacy of may be due to rapid habituation to oxytocin with chronic dosing. The objective of the present study is to describe the design of a phase 2 adaptive randomised controlled crossover trial of intranasal oxytocin in frontotemporal dementia (FOXY) as an efficient model for future investigations of symptomatic treatments in neuropsychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive design; Apathy; Clinical trial; Crossover design; Empathy; Frontotemporal dementia; Oxytocin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30261917 PMCID: PMC6161323 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-018-0427-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Fig. 1Two-stage phase II adaptive crossover trial design for intranasal oxytocin for frontotemporal dementia (FOXY). In stage 1, a total of 60 patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are randomized to one of three dose schedules. In the crossover design, baseline assessments are completed at the beginning of each treatment period. After baseline, participants receive twice-daily intranasal sprays of placebo or oxytocin for 6 weeks and then undergo complete outcome assessments and optional lumbar puncture. The first treatment period is followed by a washout period with no sprays given for 6 weeks. At the end of the washout period, participants are re-baselined prior to 6 weeks of twice-daily intranasal spays of the alternate drug (placebo or oxytocin). In stage 2, 20 additional patients with FTD are randomized to the most promising dose identified at the planned interim analyses at the end of stage 1, and complete procedures identical to those in stage 1 are performed
Outcome assessments completed at baseline assessment, end of treatment period 1, after washout (baseline 2), and end of treatment period 2
| Primary outcome measure: | |
| • Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) apathy/indifference domain score [ | |
| Secondary outcome measures: | |
| • Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) empathic concern scale and total score [ | |
| • Clinician’s Global Impression of Change (apathy) (m-CGIC) scores [ | |
| • Emotional facial expression recognition performance [ | |
| • Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS) score [ | |
| • NPI caregiver distress scores on NPI apathy/indifference scale and total caregiver distress scores [ | |
| • Total NPI scores | |
| • Cambridge Behavioural Inventory [ | |
| • Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III [ | |
| • Social Observation Checklist blinded central ratings of videotaped meals with patients and caregivers [ |
Efficiencies in sample size of adaptive crossover trial compared with traditional and parallel trial designs
| Study design | Sample size dose selectiona | Sample size POC efficacy | Total sample size | Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional parallel armb | 62 | 44 | 106 | 0.86 |
| Traditional crossover | 54 | 44 | 106 | 0.86 |
| Adaptive crossover | 60 | 24 | 84 | 0.86 |
aPower calculations performed using G*Power were based on an effect size from a minimum clinically significant difference of 2 points on the NPI apathy/indifference domain score (d = 0.7) and power of 0.80 to permit analysis for males and females, with effect size of 0.7 based on pilot study results of a 3-point difference (dkarr = 0.7) [11]. For comparison, sample sizes assuming a smaller effect size are shown for each design
bTraditional trial design-based on factor design (analysis of covariance). Four groups (three dose schedules + placebo), df = 3, disease severity as covariate, with sample size doubled to permit separate analysis of males and females
Traditional crossover design comprised three groups, df = 2, disease severity as covariate, with sample size doubled to permit separate analysis of males and females