| Title |
The importance of endpoint selection: How effective does a drug need to be for success in a clinical trial of a possible Alzheimer’s disease treatment?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Epidemiology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10654-018-0381-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Evans, Kevin McRae-McKee, Mei Mei Wong, Christoforos Hadjichrysanthou, Frank De Wolf, Roy Anderson |
| Abstract |
To date, Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials have been largely unsuccessful. Failures have been attributed to a number of factors including ineffective drugs, inadequate targets, and poor trial design, of which the choice of endpoint is crucial. Using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, we have calculated the minimum detectable effect size (MDES) in change from baseline of a range of measures over time, and in different diagnostic groups along the AD development trajectory. The Functional Activities Questionnaire score had the smallest MDES for a single endpoint where an effect of 27% could be detected within 3 years in participants with Late Mild Cognitive Impairment (LMCI) at baseline, closely followed by the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDRSB) score at 28% after 2 years in the same group. Composite measures were even more successful than single endpoints with an MDES of 21% in 3 years. Using alternative cognitive, imaging, functional, or composite endpoints, and recruiting patients that have LMCI could improve the success rate of AD clinical trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#1,471
of 1,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,674
of 331,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.