ABSTRACT
Introduction: Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote administration of neuropsychological testing. We assessed the test-retest reliability for a telephone-administered cognitive battery, recommended for use in the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC). Methods: 64 participants in the University of Southern California ADRC clinical core underwent repeat telephone evaluation using the T-cog Neuropsychological Battery. Reliability was measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and weighted Kappa coefficient for categorical variables. Mean scores for Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total and Craft Story 21 Immediate and Delayed Recall were compared using paired t tests. Results: Mean age was 74.8 (8.3 standard deviation); 73.4% were female. ICCs ranged from 0.52 to 0.84, indicating moderate test-retest reliability except for number span backward, which showed poor reliability. Weighted Kappa for MoCA items ranged from -0.016 to 0.734; however, relatively good observed agreement was seen across all items (70.3% to 98.4%). Although MoCA total scores did not significantly change, Craft Story 21 Immediate and Delayed Recall mean scores increased between first and second administrations (P < 0.0001). Discussion: Test-retest reliability for the T-cog Neuropsychological Battery is adequate. The variation seen in testing is similar to results seen from face-to-face testing, with Craft Story 21 recall showing modest and expected practice effects. Highlights: Moderate test-retest reliability is seen in most measures of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Neuropsychological Test Battery and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.52 to 0.84, except for number Span backward.Weighted Kappa for MoCA items varied, but good observed agreement was seen.MoCA total mean score did not change significantly between administrations.Craft Story 21 Immediate and Delayed Recall means increased on repeat testing (P < 0.0001).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted Alzheimer disease randomized clinical trials (RCTs), forcing investigators to make changes in the conduct of such trials while endeavoring to maintain their validity. Changing ongoing RCTs carries risks for biases and threats to validity. To understand the impact of exigent modifications due to COVID-19, we examined several scenarios in symptomatic and disease modification trials that could be made. METHODS: We identified both symptomatic and disease modification Alzheimer disease RCTs as exemplars of those that would be affected by the pandemic and considered the types of changes that sponsors could make to each. We modeled three scenarios for each of the types of trials using existing datasets, adjusting enrollment, follow-ups, and dropouts to examine the potential effects COVID-19-related changes. Simulations were performed that accounted for completion and dropout patterns using linear mixed effects models, modeling time as continuous and categorical. The statistical power of the scenarios was determined. RESULTS: Truncating both symptomatic and disease modification trials led to underpowered trials. By contrast, adapting the trials by extending the treatment period, temporarily stopping treatment, delaying outcomes assessments, and performing remote assessment allowed for increased statistical power nearly to the level originally planned. DISCUSSION: These analyses support the idea that disrupted trials under common scenarios are better continued and extended even in the face of dropouts, treatment disruptions, missing outcomes, and other exigencies and that adaptations can be made that maintain the trials' validity. We suggest some adaptive methods to do this noting that some changes become under-powered to detect the original effect sizes and expected outcomes. These analyses provide insight to better plan trials that are resilient to unexpected changes to the medical, social, and political milieu.