ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Estimand Endpoints for Longitudinal Measures of Continuous Disease Progression with an Alzheimer's Disease Example.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ICH E9 (R1) Addendum provides a framework to define an estimand and perform sensitivity analysis. The clinical endpoint (i.e., variable, response, outcome) is one of the important estimand attributes. In our opinion, the selection of the endpoint in Alzheimer's disease requires more exploration beyond what is used currently. The change in a cognitive and functional assessment scale from baseline to a specific time point of interest is often used as a primary or key secondary endpoint in clinical trials. However, such a change from baseline to the time point of interest may not reflect the benefit of the treatment over the course of treatment duration and may be difficult to intuitively understand by patients and clinicians. For two patients with the same change from baseline, the patient with rapid disease progression in the beginning is considered to have overall worse quality of life compared to the other patient with slow disease progression in the beginning but rapid progression toward the end. We explore time-averaged measurement (TAM) as a new endpoint and propose using the relative change to quantify the treatment difference. Estimands under the ICH E9 (R1) Addendum were considered by using various strategies in handling intercurrent events and used corresponding methods for handling missing data. We illustrate the use of TAM and compare the results with other commonly used estimand endpoints (the change from baseline, the relative disease progression model, and the slope of disease progression) for different estimands and imputation methods from retrospective analyses of a historical study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40676466What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.