4.7 Article

The PRO-ACT database Design, initial analyses, and predictive features

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 83, 期 19, 页码 1719-1725

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000951

关键词

-

资金

  1. ALS Therapy Alliance (ATA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To pool data from completed amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trials and create an open-access resource that enables greater understanding of the phenotype and biology of ALS. Methods: Clinical trials data were pooled from 16 completed phase II/III ALS clinical trials and one observational study. Over 8 million de-identified longitudinally collected data points from over 8,600 individuals with ALS were standardized across trials and merged to create the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) database. This database includes demographics, family histories, and longitudinal clinical and laboratory data. Mixed effects models were used to describe the rate of disease progression measured by the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and vital capacity (VC). Cox regression models were used to describe survival data. Implementing Bonferroni correction, the critical p value for 15 different tests was p = 0.003. Results: The ALSFRS-R rate of decline was 1.02 (+/-2.3) points per month and the VC rate of decline was 2.24% of predicted (+/-6.9) per month. Higher levels of uric acid at trial entry were predictive of a slower drop in ALSFRS-R (p = 0.01) and VC (p < 0.0001), and longer survival (p = 0.02). Higher levels of creatinine at baseline were predictive of a slower drop in ALSFRS-R (p = 0.01) and VC (p < 0.0001), and longer survival (p = 0.01). Finally, higher body mass index (BMI) at baseline was associated with longer survival (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The PRO-ACT database is the largest publicly available repository of merged ALS clinical trials data. We report that baseline levels of creatinine and uric acid, as well as baseline BMI, are strong predictors of disease progression and survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据