Outcome analysis in clinical trial design for acute stroke: physicians' attitudes and choices
Savitz, Sean I. ; Benatar, Michael ; Saver, Jeffrey L. ; Fisher, Marc
Citations
Student Authors
Faculty Advisor
Academic Program
UMass Chan Affiliations
Document Type
Publication Date
Keywords
*Choice Behavior
*Clinical Trials as Topic
Comprehension
Cross-Sectional Studies
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Endpoint Determination
Female
*Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Hospitals, University
Humans
Internet
Male
Neuroprotective Agents
Patient Selection
Severity of Illness Index
Stroke
Treatment Outcome
United States
Neurology
Neuroscience and Neurobiology
Subject Area
Embargo Expiration Date
Link to Full Text
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thrombolysis remains the only proven therapy to benefit acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Recent studies have introduced more sensitive outcome measures such as the shift analysis to detect a treatment effect in AIS trials and are also including imaging as a surrogate of injury.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, internet-based survey of academic neurologists regarding their attitudes, choices and understanding of various outcome measures in clinical trial design for AIS. The survey population consisted of neurologists who specialize in the care of stroke patients and are on faculty at university-affiliated hospitals in the USA.
RESULTS: 152 of 300 neurologists completed the survey. There were 79% men and 21% women. Among commonly used outcome scales in acute stroke, the most frequent ones selected for use as trial primary endpoints were the global statistic (59%), modified Rankin scale (mRS) (52%), and NIHSS (30%). When given choices about which outcome on the mRS would justify a therapeutic intervention, 54% chose a shift analysis of change in the distribution of outcomes and 39% chose a dichotomized outcome (mRS
CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents accepted an analysis of the entire distribution of the mRS scores as an appropriate endpoint analytic technique in AIS trials and did not require the traditional dichotomized outcome to demonstrate a treatment effect; however, a better understanding of the shift strategy is needed. Our data also support the importance of incorporating mismatch imaging into future neuroprotection trials.
Source
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;26(2):156-62. Epub 2008 Jun 17. Link to article on publisher's site