Learning from the past: Reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials

Michael G Benatar, James F. Howard, Richard Barohn, Gil I. Wolfe, Gary Cutter

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recently competed clinical trials of therapeutics formyasthenia gravis have varied widely in design, but also perhaps in less explicit ways. We explore ways in which these design characteristics may have influenced recruitment and results, as well as the implications for forthcoming studies. Trial eligibility criteria may inadvertently select for incident versus prevalent cases or patients with relatively mild versus more severe disease. Trial enrichment with patientswho have relativelymild diseasemay limit the sensitivity of the trial to detect a therapeutic effect. Enrichment for patients withmore severe disease may introduce confounds caused by regression toward themean. Overly narrow eligibility may limit the generalizability of results. An exclusive focus on incident cases may hamper recruitment, as may many other factors, such as access to the experimental therapeutic treatment outside of the trial or following completion of the double-blind treatment period. We illustrate how other design characteristics (e.g., treatment duration, strategy for steroid tapering, selection of the primary outcome, and principal analytic approach) may affect the sensitivity of a trial to demonstrate therapeutic effects. Finally, we consider the importance of placebo effects, being careful to differentiate these from therapeutic effects observed in the placebo group, and discuss how the use of combined outcome measures may minimize placebo effects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5-13
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume1412
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Myasthenia Gravis
Learning
Therapeutic Uses
Placebo Effect
Therapeutics
Steroids
Placebos
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Clinical Trials
Enrichment

Keywords

  • Clinical trial
  • Eligibility criteria
  • Placebo effects
  • Recruitment
  • Study design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Learning from the past : Reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials. / Benatar, Michael G; Howard, James F.; Barohn, Richard; Wolfe, Gil I.; Cutter, Gary.

In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1412, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 5-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Benatar, Michael G ; Howard, James F. ; Barohn, Richard ; Wolfe, Gil I. ; Cutter, Gary. / Learning from the past : Reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2018 ; Vol. 1412, No. 1. pp. 5-13.
@article{ad5b3b1566484312becffb169251b1c6,
title = "Learning from the past: Reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials",
abstract = "Recently competed clinical trials of therapeutics formyasthenia gravis have varied widely in design, but also perhaps in less explicit ways. We explore ways in which these design characteristics may have influenced recruitment and results, as well as the implications for forthcoming studies. Trial eligibility criteria may inadvertently select for incident versus prevalent cases or patients with relatively mild versus more severe disease. Trial enrichment with patientswho have relativelymild diseasemay limit the sensitivity of the trial to detect a therapeutic effect. Enrichment for patients withmore severe disease may introduce confounds caused by regression toward themean. Overly narrow eligibility may limit the generalizability of results. An exclusive focus on incident cases may hamper recruitment, as may many other factors, such as access to the experimental therapeutic treatment outside of the trial or following completion of the double-blind treatment period. We illustrate how other design characteristics (e.g., treatment duration, strategy for steroid tapering, selection of the primary outcome, and principal analytic approach) may affect the sensitivity of a trial to demonstrate therapeutic effects. Finally, we consider the importance of placebo effects, being careful to differentiate these from therapeutic effects observed in the placebo group, and discuss how the use of combined outcome measures may minimize placebo effects.",
keywords = "Clinical trial, Eligibility criteria, Placebo effects, Recruitment, Study design",
author = "Benatar, {Michael G} and Howard, {James F.} and Richard Barohn and Wolfe, {Gil I.} and Gary Cutter",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/nyas.13501",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "1412",
pages = "5--13",
journal = "Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences",
issn = "0077-8923",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Learning from the past

T2 - Reflections on recently completed myasthenia gravis trials

AU - Benatar, Michael G

AU - Howard, James F.

AU - Barohn, Richard

AU - Wolfe, Gil I.

AU - Cutter, Gary

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Recently competed clinical trials of therapeutics formyasthenia gravis have varied widely in design, but also perhaps in less explicit ways. We explore ways in which these design characteristics may have influenced recruitment and results, as well as the implications for forthcoming studies. Trial eligibility criteria may inadvertently select for incident versus prevalent cases or patients with relatively mild versus more severe disease. Trial enrichment with patientswho have relativelymild diseasemay limit the sensitivity of the trial to detect a therapeutic effect. Enrichment for patients withmore severe disease may introduce confounds caused by regression toward themean. Overly narrow eligibility may limit the generalizability of results. An exclusive focus on incident cases may hamper recruitment, as may many other factors, such as access to the experimental therapeutic treatment outside of the trial or following completion of the double-blind treatment period. We illustrate how other design characteristics (e.g., treatment duration, strategy for steroid tapering, selection of the primary outcome, and principal analytic approach) may affect the sensitivity of a trial to demonstrate therapeutic effects. Finally, we consider the importance of placebo effects, being careful to differentiate these from therapeutic effects observed in the placebo group, and discuss how the use of combined outcome measures may minimize placebo effects.

AB - Recently competed clinical trials of therapeutics formyasthenia gravis have varied widely in design, but also perhaps in less explicit ways. We explore ways in which these design characteristics may have influenced recruitment and results, as well as the implications for forthcoming studies. Trial eligibility criteria may inadvertently select for incident versus prevalent cases or patients with relatively mild versus more severe disease. Trial enrichment with patientswho have relativelymild diseasemay limit the sensitivity of the trial to detect a therapeutic effect. Enrichment for patients withmore severe disease may introduce confounds caused by regression toward themean. Overly narrow eligibility may limit the generalizability of results. An exclusive focus on incident cases may hamper recruitment, as may many other factors, such as access to the experimental therapeutic treatment outside of the trial or following completion of the double-blind treatment period. We illustrate how other design characteristics (e.g., treatment duration, strategy for steroid tapering, selection of the primary outcome, and principal analytic approach) may affect the sensitivity of a trial to demonstrate therapeutic effects. Finally, we consider the importance of placebo effects, being careful to differentiate these from therapeutic effects observed in the placebo group, and discuss how the use of combined outcome measures may minimize placebo effects.

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Eligibility criteria

KW - Placebo effects

KW - Recruitment

KW - Study design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044231665&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044231665&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/nyas.13501

DO - 10.1111/nyas.13501

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 29064567

AN - SCOPUS:85044231665

VL - 1412

SP - 5

EP - 13

JO - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

JF - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

SN - 0077-8923

IS - 1

ER -