HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: dc06-2479v1 30/10/2619    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dyck, P. J. Articles by O'Brien, P. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dyck, P. J. Articles by O'Brien, P. C. Social Bookmarking                What's this?

Challenges in Design of Multicenter Trials

End points assessed longitudinally for change and monotonicity

¹ Peripheral Neuropathy Research Laboratories, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota
² Viatris, Bad Homburg, Germany
³ Ergomed, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
⁴ German Diabetes Clinic, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Institute at the Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
⁵ Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis, Indiana
⁶ Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
⁷ Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Peter J. Dyck, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St., SW, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail: dyck.peter{at}mayo.edu

OBJECTIVE—Assessing clinimetric performance of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy (DSPN) end points in single and multicenter trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Assessed were placebo-treated patients with DSPN in the Viatris and Eli Lilly trials and an epidemiologic cohort.

RESULTS—Test reproducibility in clinical trial cohorts (r_I 0.7–0.85) approached that in the epidemiologic cohort (r_I 0.85–0.95). Associations between pairs of end points explained <10% of the variability of data (sometimes 15–35%), being higher in the epidemiologic cohort and the Viatris trial than in the Lilly trial. Most end points did not show monotonic worsening over 4 years. However, sural nerve amplitude and peroneal motor conduction velocity did. A nerve conduction score ( 5 NC nds [5 attributes of nerve conduction expressed as normal deviates]) did not show monotonic worsening in established DSPN. In the epidemiologic cohort followed for 9.5 years, monotonic worsening of small magnitude occurred for sural amplitude, vibration detection threshold, and especially for composite quantitative sensation.

CONCLUSIONS—The main reason why it is difficult to demonstrate monotonic worsening of neuropathic end points appears to be a very slow worsening of DSPN, a placebo effect for symptoms and signs, and measurement noise. Demonstrating disease progression in controlled trials of DSPN is more likely when 1) patients with developing rather than established DSPN are selected, 2) type 1 diabetic patients are preferentially recruited, 3) patients are selected who cannot or will not achieve ideal glycemic control, 4) end points chosen are known to show monotonic worsening, and 5) a restricted number of centers and expert examiners (trained, certified, using standard approaches, and reference values and interactive surveillance of tests) are used.

Abbreviations: DCCT, Diabetes Control and Complications Trial • DSPN, diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy • NC, nerve conduction • NIS(LL), neuropathy impairment score of lower limbs • NSC, neuropathy symptom and change score • QST, quantitative sensation test

CiteULike    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. J.M. Boulton Whither Clinical Research in Diabetic Sensorimotor Peripheral Neuropathy?: Problems of end point selection for clinical trials Diabetes Care, October 1, 2007; 30(10): 2752 - 2753. [Full Text] [PDF]