Recruitment for drug studies in dementia.
A. Korczyn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002093-200210000-00011
2002-10-01
Abstract:Drug studies are aimed, to a large extent, to investigate the usefulness of a drug for a specific indication. Recruiting adequate numbers of eligible participants for drug studies is always a challenge for investigators, who have to adhere to defined protocols and are limited in their abilities to modify therapy according to clinical considerations. Not less importantly, particularly in drug studies of demented people, are the challenges to patients and caregivers. Against the hope of achieving some clinical amelioration, they must also consider other factors, such as the need for frequent visits to the medical center and the corresponding time and money spent for this purpose. This is of course accentuated by the fact that in many cases the patients may not even get an active, or possibly effective, chemical agent but will be assigned to a placebo arm. Given these constraints, it is not surprising that recruitment rates to research studies in dementia sometimes are rather low. As described by Cohen-Mansfield (2002) in this issue, these rates vary from 80% to the very low figure of 1%, with the lowest rate applying to a drug study. This important paper highlights the amount of work invested during screening of potential participants, which may be quite laborious and frequently not uncompensated. This factor should be considered seriously before embarking on a drug study. The low “drop-in” rate (i.e., the small proportion of those who will enter the study from among those screened) means that smaller centers will find it difficult to recruit a significant number of participants in a multicenter study. Experience with the study procedures improves not only the efficiency of the work but also its quality. Centers that are only able to recruit a limited number of subjects thus may have a negative impact on the quality of the results of the study. A major point worth considering is the implication of this low “drop-in” rate on the significance of the results. Although the conclusions of any study of course apply to the studied population, they are expected to be generalizable to a larger population. However, the large selection bias may limit this assumption. This bias is created by the patients’ inclusion/exclusion criteria and the decision by the patient and caregiver about whether to participate in the study. The selection criteria in drug studies frequently refer to age and associated disorders. People younger than a given age (e.g., 50 years) or older than a given age (e.g., 80 or 90 years) are frequently excluded. Other major reasons for exclusion are the study protocol restrictions, defining the population to be studied in terms of diagnostic criteria, disease duration, and comorbidity. In this context, depression should be mentioned. All too frequently, patients presenting with dementia are excluded because they have depressive features, sometimes ascertained simply by a high score on some scale, such as the Hamilton depression scale. However, this scale has not been designed for old people with dementia (and in fact not even for the diagnosis of depression). Many of the organic manifestations in old age, such as loss of weight or constipation, sleep problems, etc., are not necessarily due to depression. Similarly, patients with a vascular component are excluded from drug studies of Alzheimer disease, based on the presence of a high Hachinski Ischemic Score, disregarding the limitations of this scoring system (Nussbaum et al., 1992) and the fact that Alzheimer disease and vascular brain insults frequently co-occur. The other main reason why people are excluded from drug (and other) studies in dementia is the patients’ or caregivers’ decision, based on their perception of benefit and risks. This perception depends to a large extent on the interaction between the investigator and the patient and is probably higher if the patient is approached by a physician already known to the patient (or caregiver) rather than by an investigator. This self-selection may also lead to overrepresentation in drug studies of highly motivated people. Although this is helpful to the conduction of the study, it may lead to more prominent placebo responses (Korczyn, 1993). There can be little doubt that the decision to consent to a study carries with it high expectations, i.e., possible positive placebo responses. This factor should be considered when calculating the power of the study as well as the repercussions for the drug effect in real life, outside the artificial controlled environment of the study. The fact that the studied population does not represent well the source population of all demented people limits the certainty with which one can predict the effects of the Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 283–284 © 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., Philadelphia