ObjectiveTo assess the effect of eligibility criteria on exclusion rates, generalizability, and outcome heterogeneity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trials and to assess the value of a risk-based inclusion criterion.MethodsA literature search was performed to summarize the eligibility criteria of clinical trials. The extracted criteria were applied to an incidence cohort of 2,904 consecutive patients with ALS to quantify their effects on generalizability and outcome heterogeneity. We evaluated the effect of a risk-based selection approach on trial design using a personalized survival prediction model.ResultsWe identified 38 trials. A large variability exists between trials in all patient characteristics for enrolled patients (p < 0.001), except for the proportion of men (p = 0.21). Exclusion rates varied widely (from 14% to 95%; mean 59.8%; 95% confidence interval 52.6%–66.7%). Stratification of the eligible populations into prognostic subgroups showed that eligibility criteria lead to exclusion of patients in all prognostic groups. Eligibility criteria neither reduce heterogeneity in survival time (from 22.0 to 20.5 months, p = 0.09) nor affect between-patient variability in functional decline (from 0.62 to 0.65, p = 0.25). In none of the 38 trials were the eligibility criteria found to be more efficient than the prediction model in optimizing sample size and eligibility rate.ConclusionsThe majority of patients with ALS are excluded from trial participation, which questions the generalizability of trial results. Eligibility criteria only minimally improve homogeneity in trial endpoints. An individualized risk-based criterion could be used to balance the gains in trial design and loss in generalizability.
Background The objective of this study was to assess whether migraine-related outcomes changed during intelligent lockdown when compared with the prior period. Methods This was a cohort study evaluating the first month of intelligent lockdown in the Netherlands (12 March to 8 April 2020) compared with one baseline month (13 February to 11 March 2020). We identified 870 migraine patients treated at the Leiden Headache Center with headache e-diaries during the period of interest. Adherence to the e-diary had to be ≥80%, yielding 592 enrolled patients. Results Intelligent lockdown led to a decrease in monthly migraine days (−0.48; 95% CI: −0078 to −0.18, p = 0.002) and acute medication days (−0.48; 95% CI: −0.76 to −0.20, p < 0.001), and an increase in general well-being (0.11; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.17, p < 0.001). No differences in non-migrainous headache days and pain coping were observed. Consistent results were found in a subset that was followed for 4 months. Conclusions Our findings imply that intelligent lockdown measures can improve migraine disability despite of the potential negative effects of COVID-19 and lockdown. We hypothesise that this effect is a combined result of working from home, scaling down demanding social lives, and freedom to choose how to organise one’s time.
Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide with a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Blockade of CGRP is a new therapeutic target for patients with migraine. CGRP and its receptors are distributed not only in the central and peripheral nervous system but also in the cardiovascular system, both in blood vessels and in the heart. We reviewed the current evidence on the role of CGRP in the cardiovascular system in order to understand the possible short- and long-term effect of CGRP blockade with monoclonal antibodies in migraineurs.In physiological conditions, CGRP has important vasodilating effects and is thought to protect organs from ischemia. Despite the aforementioned cardiovascular implication, preventive treatment with CGRP antibodies has shown no relevant cardiovascular side effects. Results from long-term trials and from real life are now needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.