Christopher G Tarolli1,2, Kelly Andrzejewski3, Grace A Zimmerman1, Michael Bull1, Steven Goldenthal2,4, Peggy Auinger2, Michael O'Brien5, E Ray Dorsey1,2, Kevin Biglan6, Tanya Simuni7. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA. 2. Center for Health+Technology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. 3. Department of Neurology, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. AMC Health, New York, NY, USA. 6. Early Phase Clinical Development, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is rising interest in remote clinical trial assessments, particularly in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility, reliability, and value of remote visits in a phase III clinical trial of individuals with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: We invited individuals with Parkinson's disease enrolled in a phase III clinical trial (STEADY-PD III) to enroll in a sub-study of remote video-based visits. Participants completed three remote visits over one year within four weeks of an in-person visit and completed assessments performed during the remote visit. We evaluated the ability to complete scheduled assessments remotely; agreement between remote and in-person outcome measures; and opinions of remote visits. RESULTS:We enrolled 40 participants (mean (SD) age 64.3 (10.4), 29% women), and 38 (95%) completed all remote visits. There was excellent correlation (ICC 0.81-0.87) between remote and in-person patient-reported outcomes, and moderate correlation (ICC 0.43-0.51) between remote and in-person motor assessments. On average, remote visits took around one quarter of the time of in-person visits (54 vs 190 minutes). Nearly all participants liked remote visits, and three-quarters said they would be more likely to participate in future trials if some visits could be conducted remotely. CONCLUSION: Remote visits are feasible and reliable in a phase III clinical trial of individuals with early, untreated Parkinson's disease. These visits are shorter, reduce participant burden, and enable safe conduct of research visits, which is especially important in the COVID-19 pandemic.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is rising interest in remote clinical trial assessments, particularly in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility, reliability, and value of remote visits in a phase III clinical trial of individuals with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: We invited individuals with Parkinson's disease enrolled in a phase III clinical trial (STEADY-PD III) to enroll in a sub-study of remote video-based visits. Participants completed three remote visits over one year within four weeks of an in-person visit and completed assessments performed during the remote visit. We evaluated the ability to complete scheduled assessments remotely; agreement between remote and in-person outcome measures; and opinions of remote visits. RESULTS: We enrolled 40 participants (mean (SD) age 64.3 (10.4), 29% women), and 38 (95%) completed all remote visits. There was excellent correlation (ICC 0.81-0.87) between remote and in-person patient-reported outcomes, and moderate correlation (ICC 0.43-0.51) between remote and in-person motor assessments. On average, remote visits took around one quarter of the time of in-person visits (54 vs 190 minutes). Nearly all participants liked remote visits, and three-quarters said they would be more likely to participate in future trials if some visits could be conducted remotely. CONCLUSION: Remote visits are feasible and reliable in a phase III clinical trial of individuals with early, untreated Parkinson's disease. These visits are shorter, reduce participant burden, and enable safe conduct of research visits, which is especially important in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authors: Edoardo Bianchini; Camilla Onelli; Carmen Morabito; Marika Alborghetti; Domiziana Rinaldi; Paolo Anibaldi; Adriano Marcolongo; Marco Salvetti; Francesco E Pontieri Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Andrew Hooyman; Joshua S Talboom; Matthew D DeBoth; Lee Ryan; Matthew J Huentelman; Sydney Y Schaefer Journal: Dev Neuropsychol Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 2.113
Authors: Anne-Marie Wills; Alexander Pantelyat; Alberto Espay; James Chan; Irene Litvan; Tao Xie; Marian L Dale; Steven A Gunzler; Maria Carmela Tartaglia; Susan H Fox; Federico Rodriguez-Porcel; Mansi Sharma; Anthony E Lang; Adam L Boxer; Lawrence I Golbe Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 9.698
Authors: Samuel Daly; Jacob T Hanson; Vibha Mavanji; Amy Gravely; James Jean; Alec Jonason; Scott Lewis; James Ashe; John M Looft; Robert A McGovern Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Neal Hermanowicz; Maria Cristina Ospina; Yasar Torres-Yaghi; Sherrie Gould; Kelly Papesh; Jason A Rivera; Susan Miller; Sarah Jones; Kelli Musick; Damian May Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: Stella Jensen-Roberts; Taylor L Myers; Peggy Auinger; Paul Cannon; Helen M Rowbotham; Daniella Coker; Eli Chanoff; Julia Soto; Meghan Pawlik; Katherine Amodeo; Saloni Sharma; Blanca Valdovinos; Renee Wilson; Aayush Sarkar; Michael P McDermott; Roy N Alcalay; Kevin Biglan; Daniel Kinel; Caroline Tanner; Reni Winter-Evans; Erika F Augustine; Robert G Holloway; E Ray Dorsey; Ruth B Schneider Journal: Neurol Genet Date: 2022-08-11
Authors: Taylor L Myers; Christopher G Tarolli; Jamie L Adams; Richard Barbano; María Cristina Gil-Díaz; Kelsey L Spear; Jill Lowell; Margaret Daeschler; Lindsey Riley; Ninad Amondikar; Peggy Auinger; Connie Marras; Caroline M Tanner; E Ray Dorsey; Ruth B Schneider Journal: Clin Park Relat Disord Date: 2021-05-24