4.1 Article

NIA-Funded Alzheimer Centers Are More Efficient than Commercial Clinical Recruitment Sites for Conducting Secondary Prevention Trials of Dementia

期刊

ALZHEIMER DISEASE & ASSOCIATED DISORDERS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 159-164

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181c9983f

关键词

attrition; loss to follow-up; sample size; power; dropout; retention; clinical trial methodology

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [U01 AG010483]
  2. University of California San Diego Alzheimer's Disease Research Center [P50 AG005131]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study participant dropout compromises clinical trials by reducing statistical power and potentially biasing findings. We use data from a trial of treatments to delay the progression of mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease (AD) [NEJM 2005; 352 (23):79 to 88] to determine predictors of study participant dropout and inform the design and implementation of future trials. Time to study discontinuation was modeled by proportional hazards regression with censoring at incident dementia or trial completion. Of 769 participants, 230 (30%) discontinued prematurely. Risk of dropout was higher among nonwhites [hazard ratio (HR) 2.1, P = 0.0007], participants with less than college education (HR = 1.6, P = 0.02), participants with a Hamilton Depression score of 6 or more (HR = 1.3, P = 0.04), unmarried males (HR = 2.1 relative to married males, P = 0.003) and participants recruited by commercial clinical sites (HR = 2.2 relative to participants recruited by NIA-funded AD research centers, P < 0.0001). A trial using commercial sites with the discontinuation rates and incident dementia event rates experienced in this trial would require 80% more participants than a comparably powered trial using NIA-funded AD research center sites. Targeted retention efforts and utilization of academic sites could substantively improve the statistical power and validity of future clinical trials of cognitively impaired elderly.

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

4.1
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