A pilot protocol to assess the feasibility of a virtual multiple crossover, randomized controlled trial design using methylphenidate in mild cognitive impairment

Libby A DesRuisseaux, Victoria J Williams, Alison J McManus, Anoopum S Gupta, Becky C Carlyle, Hamed Azami, Jessica A Gerber, Anna M Bolling, Carolyn L Cook, Rebecca A Betensky, Steven E Arnold, Libby A DesRuisseaux, Victoria J Williams, Alison J McManus, Anoopum S Gupta, Becky C Carlyle, Hamed Azami, Jessica A Gerber, Anna M Bolling, Carolyn L Cook, Rebecca A Betensky, Steven E Arnold

Abstract

Background: The conventional clinical trial design in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related disorders (ADRDs) is the parallel-group randomized controlled trial. However, in heterogeneous disorders like AD/ADRDs, this design requires large sample sizes to detect meaningful effects in an "average" patient. They are very costly and, despite many attempts, have not yielded new treatments for many years. An alternative, the multi-crossover, randomized control trial (MCRCT) is a design in which each patient serves as their own control across successive, randomized blocks of active treatment and placebo. This design overcomes many limitations of parallel-group trials, yielding an unbiased assessment of treatment effect at the individual level ("N-of-1") regardless of unique patient characteristics. The goal of the present study is to pilot a MCRCT of a potential symptomatic treatment, methylphenidate, for mild-stage AD/ADRDs, testing feasibility and compliance of participants in this design and efficacy of the drug using both standard and novel outcome measures suited for this design.

Methods: Ten participants with mild cognitive impairment or mild-stage dementia due to AD/ADRDs will undergo a 4-week lead-in period followed by three, month-long treatment blocks (2 weeks of treatment with methylphenidate, 2 weeks placebo in random order). This trial will be conducted entirely virtually with an optional in-person screening visit. The primary outcome of interest is feasibility as measured by compliance and retention, with secondary and exploratory outcomes including cognition as measured by neuropsychological assessment at the end of each treatment period and daily brain games played throughout the study, actigraphy, and neuropsychiatric and functional assessments.

Discussion: This pilot study will gauge the feasibility of conducting a virtual MCRCT for symptomatic treatment in early AD/ADRD. It will also compare home-based daily brain games with standard neuropsychological measures within a clinical trial for AD/ADRD. Particular attention will be paid to compliance, tolerability of drug and participation, learning effects, trends and stability of daily measures across blocks, medication carryover effects, and correlations between standard and brief daily assessments. These data will provide guidance for more efficient trial design and the use of potentially more robust, ecological outcome measures in AD/ADRD research.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03811847 . Registered on 21 January 2019.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Clinical trial design; Methylphenidate; Mild cognitive impairment; Multiple crossover trial; Virtual trial.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial design schema. Each participant will be randomized into one of six block randomization sequences such that each sequence will have at least one participant assigned to it

References

    1. Lam B, Masellis M, Freedman M, Stuss DT, Black SE. Clinical, imaging, and pathological heterogeneity of the Alzheimer’s disease syndrome. Alz Res Therapy. 2013;5(1):1. doi: 10.1186/alzrt155.
    1. Warren JD, Fletcher PD, Golden HL. The paradox of syndromic diversity in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol. 2012;8(8):451–464. doi: 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.135.
    1. Arnold SE, Betensky RA. Multicrossover randomized controlled trial designs in Alzheimer disease: multicrossover RCTs in AD. Ann Neurol. 2018;84(2):168–175. doi: 10.1002/ana.25280.
    1. Jones B, Kenward MG. Design and analysis of cross-over trials. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2015.
    1. Bothwell LE, Avorn J, Khan NF, Kesselheim AS. Adaptive design clinical trials: a review of the literature and . BMJ Open. 2018;8(2) Available from: . Cited 2019 Oct 22.
    1. Senn S. The AB/BA crossover: past, present and future? Stat Methods Med Res. 1994; Available from: . Cited 2020 Jun 1.
    1. Senn S. Sample size considerations for n-of-1 trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2019;28(2):372–383. doi: 10.1177/0962280217726801.
    1. Arnett PA. Secondary influences on neurpsychological test performance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
    1. Alhola P, Polo-Kantola P. Sleep deprivation: impact on cognitive performance. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2007;3(5):553–567.
    1. Niermeyer MA, Suchy Y. The vulnerability of executive functioning: the additive effects of recent non-restorative sleep, pain interference, and use of expressive suppression on test performance. Clin Neuropsychol. 2020;34(4):700–719. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2019.1696892.
    1. Stuss DT, Murphy KJ, Binns MA, Alexander MP. Staying on the job: the frontal lobes control individual performance variability. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 11):2363–2380. doi: 10.1093/brain/awg237.
    1. Thaler NS, Hill BD, Duff K, Mold J, Scott JG. Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) intraindividual variability in older adults: associations with disease and mortality. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2015;37(6):622–629. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2015.1039962.
    1. Raudino F. Non-cognitive symptoms and related conditions in the Alzheimer’s disease: a literature review. Neurol Sci. 2013;34(8):1275–1282. doi: 10.1007/s10072-013-1424-7.
    1. Nelson JC. The role of stimulants in late-life depression. AJP. 2015;172(6):505–507. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15030356.
    1. Rozans M, Dreisbach A, Lertora JJL, Kahn MJ. Palliative uses of methylphenidate in patients with cancer: a review. JCO. 2002;20(1):335–339. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.1.335.
    1. Prommer E. Methylphenidate: established and expanding roles in symptom management. Am J Hosp Palliat Med. 2012;29(6):483–490. doi: 10.1177/1049909111427029.
    1. Volz TJ, Fleckenstein AE, Hanson GR. Methamphetamine-induced alterations in monoamine transport: implications for neurotoxicity, neuroprotection and treatment. Addiction. 102(s1):44–8 Available from: . Cited 2018 Aug 15.
    1. Elliott R, Sahakian BJ, Matthews K, Bannerjea A, Rimmer J, Robbins TW. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology. 1997;131(2):196–206. doi: 10.1007/s002130050284.
    1. Mehta MA, Owen AM, Sahakian BJ, Mavaddat N, Pickard JD, Robbins TW. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. J Neurosci. 2000;20(6):RC65. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.20-06-j0004.2000.
    1. Padala PR, Padala KP, Lensing SY, Ramirez D, Monga V, Bopp MM, et al. Methylphenidate for apathy in community-dwelling older veterans with mild Alzheimer’s disease: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(2):159–168. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2017.17030316.
    1. Rosenberg PB, Lanctôt KL, Drye LT, Herrmann N, Scherer RW, Bachman DL, et al. Safety and efficacy of methylphenidate for apathy in Alzheimer’s disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry. 2013;74(08):810–816. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12m08099.
    1. Spiegel DR, Kim J, Greene K, Conner C, Zamfir D. Apathy due to cerebrovascular accidents successfully treated with methylphenidate: a case series. JNP. 2009;21(2):216–219. doi: 10.1176/jnp.2009.21.2.216.
    1. Mann S, Fogel S, Hawkins J, Duffy J, Krupp B. Apathy: a treatable syndrome. J Neuro-Oncol. 1995;7(1):8.
    1. Jansen IHM, Hoefnagels WHL. Toward individualized evidence-based medicine: five “N of 1” trials of methylphenidate in geriatric patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(4). 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49092.x Cited 2018 Aug 14.
    1. Galynker I, Ieronimo C, Miner C, Rosenblum J, Vikas N, Rosenthal R. Methylphenidate treatment of negative symptoms in patients with dementia. J Neuro-Oncol. 1997;9(2):231–239.
    1. Santangelo G, Barone P, Cuoco S, Raimo S, Pezzella D, Picillo M, et al. Apathy in untreated, de novo patients with Parkinson’s disease: validation study of Apathy Evaluation Scale. J Neurol. 2014;261(12):2319–2328. doi: 10.1007/s00415-014-7498-1.
    1. Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(3):310–319. doi: 10.1076/jcen.20.3.310.823.
    1. Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Dobraski M, Shpritz B. Revision of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test: studies of normal performance, reliability, and validity. Psychol Assess. 1996;8(2):145–153. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.2.145.
    1. Reitan RM. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills. 1958;8(3):271–276. doi: 10.2466/pms.1958.8.3.271.
    1. Kaemmerer T, Riordan P. Oral adaptation of the Trail Making Test: a practical review. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2016;23(5):384–389. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2016.1178645.
    1. Ricker JH, Axelrod BN. Analysis of an oral paradigm for the Trail Making Test. Assessment. 1994;1(1):47–51. doi: 10.1177/1073191194001001007.
    1. Meagher J, Leonard M, Donoghue L, O’Regan N, Timmons S, Exton C, et al. Months backward test: a review of its use in clinical studies. World J Psychiatry. 2015;5(3):305–314. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v5.i3.305.
    1. Rosvold HE, Mirsky AF, Sarason I, Bransome ED, Jr, Beck LH. A continuous performance test of brain damage. J Consult Psychol. 1956;20(5):343–350. doi: 10.1037/h0043220.
    1. Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah CH, Chance JM, Filos S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol. 1982;37(3):323–329. doi: 10.1093/geronj/37.3.323.
    1. Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, Ernesto C, Thomas R, Grundman M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1997;11(Suppl. 2):S33–S39. doi: 10.1097/00002093-199700112-00005.
    1. Clark CM, Ewbank DC. Performance of the dementia severity rating scale: a caregiver questionnaire for rating severity in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1996;10(1):31–39.
    1. Concerta (methylphenidate HCI) Extended-release Tablets CII. Food and Drug Administration; 2017. Available from: . Cited 2020 Aug 14.
    1. Yesavage JA, Sheikh JI. 9/Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) Clin Gerontol. 1986;5(1–2):165–173. doi: 10.1300/J018v05n01_09.
    1. Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S. Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry Res. 1991;38(2):143–162. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-V.
    1. Beck AT, Epstein N, Brown G, Steer RA. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56(6):893–897. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893.
    1. Logsdon RG, Teri L, Weiner MF, Gibbons LE, Raskind M, Peskind E, et al. Assessment of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease: the Agitated Behavior in Dementia Scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(11):1354–1358. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb07439.x.
    1. Arnold DM, Burns KEA, Adhikari NKJ, Kho ME, Meade MO, Cook DJ, et al. The design and interpretation of pilot trials in clinical research in critical care. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(1):S69. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181920e33.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
    1. Grill JD, Karlawish J. Addressing the challenges to successful recruitment and retention in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alz Res Therapy. 2010;2(6):34. doi: 10.1186/alzrt58.
    1. Galvin JE, Powlishta KK, Wilkins K, McKeel DW, Xiong C, Grant E, et al. Predictors of preclinical Alzheimer disease and dementia: a clinicopathologic study. Arch Neurol. 2005;62(5):758–765. doi: 10.1001/archneur.62.5.758.
    1. Darby D, Maruff P, Collie A, McStephen M. Mild cognitive impairment can be detected by multiple assessments in a single day. Neurology. 2002;59(7):1042–1046. doi: 10.1212/WNL.59.7.1042.
    1. Cooper DB, Lacritz LH, Weiner MF, Rosenberg RN, Cullum CM. Category fluency in mild cognitive impairment: reduced effect of practice in test-retest conditions. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2004;18(3):120–122. doi: 10.1097/01.wad.0000127442.15689.92.
    1. McCallum S, Boletsis C. Dementia games: a literature review of dementia-related serious games. In: Ma M, Oliveira MF, Petersen S, Hauge JB, editors. Serious games development and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013. pp. 15–27.
    1. O’Shea DM, Wit LD, Smith GE. Doctor, should I use computer games to prevent dementia? Clin Gerontol. 2019;42(1):3–16. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2017.1370057.
    1. Cullum CM, Hynan LS, Grosch M, Parikh M, Weiner MF. Teleneuropsychology: evidence for video teleconference-based neuropsychological assessment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014;20(10):1028–1033. doi: 10.1017/S1355617714000873.
    1. Brearly TW, Shura RD, Martindale SL, Lazowski RA, Luxton DD, Shenal BV, et al. Neuropsychological test administration by videoconference: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev. 2017;27(2):174–186. doi: 10.1007/s11065-017-9349-1.
    1. Wadsworth HE, Dhima K, Womack KB, Hart J, Weiner MF, Hynan LS, et al. Validity of teleneuropsychological assessment in older patients with cognitive disorders. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2018;33(8):1040–1045. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acx140.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren