Socioeconomic disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

M. Canevelli, G. Bruno, C. Vico, V. Zaccaria, E. Lacorte, I. Iavicoli, N. Vanacore, M. Cesari

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and purpose: There is now a wide consensus at recognizing social and economic circumstances as main determinants of an individual's health status. Nevertheless, characteristics relating to socioeconomic status (SES) are poorly described in research reports. The aim of the present review was to verify whether the SES of participants is adequately reported in interventional studies targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of SES proxy measures on the efficacy of the considered medications. Methods: A systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the currently marketed drugs for AD (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine) was conducted by performing a structured search on PubMed and the Cochrane databases. The following indicators of SES were considered in the retained studies: (i) educational level, (ii) lifetime job category, (iii) income and (iv) wealth. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Results: A total of 48 articles were finally selected. Overall, only eight RCTs reported data concerning the four considered SES indicators. Indeed, only information pertaining to the educational level of participants was provided. Only one RCT (n = 60) performed ad hoc, secondary analyses accounting for the SES of participating subjects. Conclusions: The research and clinical relevance of SES has mistakenly been overlooked by the vast majority of RCTs on AD. A greater effort should be made to collect and report data on those SES indicators that may significantly affect the clinical manifestations and trajectories of patients with cognitive disturbances.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)626-e43
JournalEuropean Journal of Neurology
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2018

Fingerprint

Social Class
Alzheimer Disease
Clinical Trials
Randomized Controlled Trials
Memantine
Cholinesterase Inhibitors
Proxy
PubMed
Health Status
Consensus
Economics
Databases
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Alzheimer's disease
  • external validity
  • randomized controlled trials
  • socioeconomic status

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology

Cite this

Socioeconomic disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease : a systematic review. / Canevelli, M.; Bruno, G.; Vico, C.; Zaccaria, V.; Lacorte, E.; Iavicoli, I.; Vanacore, N.; Cesari, M.

In: European Journal of Neurology, Vol. 25, No. 4, 01.04.2018, p. 626-e43.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Canevelli, M. ; Bruno, G. ; Vico, C. ; Zaccaria, V. ; Lacorte, E. ; Iavicoli, I. ; Vanacore, N. ; Cesari, M. / Socioeconomic disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease : a systematic review. In: European Journal of Neurology. 2018 ; Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 626-e43.
@article{6c52a1cd47d3462c97d092659346ed6d,
title = "Socioeconomic disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review",
abstract = "Background and purpose: There is now a wide consensus at recognizing social and economic circumstances as main determinants of an individual's health status. Nevertheless, characteristics relating to socioeconomic status (SES) are poorly described in research reports. The aim of the present review was to verify whether the SES of participants is adequately reported in interventional studies targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of SES proxy measures on the efficacy of the considered medications. Methods: A systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the currently marketed drugs for AD (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine) was conducted by performing a structured search on PubMed and the Cochrane databases. The following indicators of SES were considered in the retained studies: (i) educational level, (ii) lifetime job category, (iii) income and (iv) wealth. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Results: A total of 48 articles were finally selected. Overall, only eight RCTs reported data concerning the four considered SES indicators. Indeed, only information pertaining to the educational level of participants was provided. Only one RCT (n = 60) performed ad hoc, secondary analyses accounting for the SES of participating subjects. Conclusions: The research and clinical relevance of SES has mistakenly been overlooked by the vast majority of RCTs on AD. A greater effort should be made to collect and report data on those SES indicators that may significantly affect the clinical manifestations and trajectories of patients with cognitive disturbances.",
keywords = "Alzheimer's disease, external validity, randomized controlled trials, socioeconomic status",
author = "M. Canevelli and G. Bruno and C. Vico and V. Zaccaria and E. Lacorte and I. Iavicoli and N. Vanacore and M. Cesari",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ene.13587",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "626--e43",
journal = "European Journal of Neurology",
issn = "1351-5101",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Socioeconomic disparities in clinical trials on Alzheimer's disease

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Canevelli, M.

AU - Bruno, G.

AU - Vico, C.

AU - Zaccaria, V.

AU - Lacorte, E.

AU - Iavicoli, I.

AU - Vanacore, N.

AU - Cesari, M.

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Background and purpose: There is now a wide consensus at recognizing social and economic circumstances as main determinants of an individual's health status. Nevertheless, characteristics relating to socioeconomic status (SES) are poorly described in research reports. The aim of the present review was to verify whether the SES of participants is adequately reported in interventional studies targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of SES proxy measures on the efficacy of the considered medications. Methods: A systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the currently marketed drugs for AD (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine) was conducted by performing a structured search on PubMed and the Cochrane databases. The following indicators of SES were considered in the retained studies: (i) educational level, (ii) lifetime job category, (iii) income and (iv) wealth. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Results: A total of 48 articles were finally selected. Overall, only eight RCTs reported data concerning the four considered SES indicators. Indeed, only information pertaining to the educational level of participants was provided. Only one RCT (n = 60) performed ad hoc, secondary analyses accounting for the SES of participating subjects. Conclusions: The research and clinical relevance of SES has mistakenly been overlooked by the vast majority of RCTs on AD. A greater effort should be made to collect and report data on those SES indicators that may significantly affect the clinical manifestations and trajectories of patients with cognitive disturbances.

AB - Background and purpose: There is now a wide consensus at recognizing social and economic circumstances as main determinants of an individual's health status. Nevertheless, characteristics relating to socioeconomic status (SES) are poorly described in research reports. The aim of the present review was to verify whether the SES of participants is adequately reported in interventional studies targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to explore the impact of SES proxy measures on the efficacy of the considered medications. Methods: A systematic review of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the currently marketed drugs for AD (i.e. cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine) was conducted by performing a structured search on PubMed and the Cochrane databases. The following indicators of SES were considered in the retained studies: (i) educational level, (ii) lifetime job category, (iii) income and (iv) wealth. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials. Results: A total of 48 articles were finally selected. Overall, only eight RCTs reported data concerning the four considered SES indicators. Indeed, only information pertaining to the educational level of participants was provided. Only one RCT (n = 60) performed ad hoc, secondary analyses accounting for the SES of participating subjects. Conclusions: The research and clinical relevance of SES has mistakenly been overlooked by the vast majority of RCTs on AD. A greater effort should be made to collect and report data on those SES indicators that may significantly affect the clinical manifestations and trajectories of patients with cognitive disturbances.

KW - Alzheimer's disease

KW - external validity

KW - randomized controlled trials

KW - socioeconomic status

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042436881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042436881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ene.13587

DO - 10.1111/ene.13587

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85042436881

VL - 25

SP - 626-e43

JO - European Journal of Neurology

JF - European Journal of Neurology

SN - 1351-5101

IS - 4

ER -