Abstract
Objective
To characterize the participant demographics in the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) database compared with the web-portal National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry (the Registry).
Methods
Demographics and ALS symptom information were compared between the self-reported registrant data in the Registry web portal (2010–2021) and the latest available PRO-ACT data (updated August 2022), which is a collection of clinical trials data.
Results
Greater percentages of younger (≤ 59 years old) but smaller percentages of older (60 + years old) participants were represented in PRO-ACT compared to Registry. Enrollment for minority race groups was greater in the Registry portal data, but race information was largely missing/unknown in PRO-ACT database. Median age at the time of diagnosis and age at the time of symptom onset were significantly higher for Registry enrollees compared to the participants of PRO-ACT. Symptom onset sites were similarly reported, but duration between self-noted symptom onset and diagnosis was slight, but significantly longer for the Registry enrollees (11 vs. 9 months). Hispanic were as likely as non-Hispanic to participate in research studies, based on the Registry data.
Conclusion
There was a notable difference in the age distribution and minority representation of enrollees between the PRO-ACT and Registry study populations. Age distribution in the PRO-ACT database skewed to a younger and less diverse cohort. Despite the clinical heterogeneity and complex disease mechanism of ALS, identifying the underrepresented demographic niche in the PRO-ACT and Registry study populations can help improve patient participation and criteria for patient selection to enhance generalizability.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; Lou Gehrig disease) is a rare, progressive neuromuscular disorder that typically results in death within 2–5 years post-diagnosis, usually due to respiratory failure, with some patients surviving more than 5–10 years [1, 2]. Symptom onset due to degenerating upper and lower motor neurons leads to paralysis of voluntary skeletal muscles of limbs, face, and neck [3]. While there is no cure for ALS, a great stride in therapeutic discovery has been made since the initial Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of riluzole (Rilutek®) in 1995 [4]. In recent years, edaravone (Radicava®), Relyvrio™ [5, 6], and Qalsody™ (Tofersen) [7] have been approved for treating ALS in 2017, 2022, and 2023, respectively.
In 2008, the ALS Registry Act, Public Law 110–73, was mandated by Congress to better understand the disease burden among the United States (U.S) adult population [8]. In 2010, the National ALS Registry (Registry) launched an online portal as a platform for persons living with ALS to self-enroll and provide information by completing various surveys. Since then, ALS prevalence [9,10,11,12,13,14,15], incidence [16], and mortality [17] rates have been reported to better observe disease burden and trend by utilizing web portal and administrative national databases [e.g., Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)]. Furthermore, the online platform has been used by ALS researchers seeking to increase patient sample size and recruit for clinical trials and epidemiological studies [18, 19]. A recent study on the utilization of the Registry Research Notification Mechanism reported greater patient recruitment and enrollment compared to other methods (i.e., pamphlets and social media) [18]. However, many factors about rare disease, such as challenges of meeting the gold standard of traditional randomized clinical trials and eligibility criteria of patient recruitment, persist [20, 21]. A recent meta-analysis found 59.8% of ALS patients on average are excluded from clinical trial eligibility at the time of ALS diagnosis [22]. While reasons for such exclusion varied, the attributes of those selected for participation skewed toward more men, younger cohort, slower disease progression, and those with longer survival [22].
PRO-ACT, or Pooled Resource Open-access ALS Clinical Trials [23], represents the largest collection of publicly available Phase II/III ALS clinical trial participant data [24]. This database contains fully de-identified clinical and laboratory information collected and donated by various pharmaceutical companies and other consortia. While PRO-ACT does not represent all ALS clinical trials exclusively, an analysis of its data may provide insights into trial participant characteristics and allow examination of demographics and clinical characteristics collected in ALS clinical trials.
Our primary objective is to identify potential differences in the demographic characteristics of ALS patients being recruited through the clinical trials in PRO-ACT compared to those more likely to represent the epidemiological population as recognized in the Registry portal database. ALS clinical trial designs may be challenged by disease rarity, phenotype heterogeneity, and complex disease mechanism [25,26,27,28]. Nonetheless, learning from the barriers in clinical trials of other diseases [29,30,31,32], such as demographic disparity, and recognizing the broad spectrum of ALS population would improve the generalizability of the study outcome and approved therapeutics.
Methods
Data Source
Data from the Registry consists of information only from the online web-portal platform (https://www.cdc.gov/als/ALSJoinALSRegistry.html) collected from 2010 to 2021; no ALS patients’ information from CMS, VHA, or VBA was used. All responses from the Registry portal are self-reported. Demographics and ALS symptom-related information were selected for comparison with the data in the PRO-ACT.
The PRO-ACT database (https://ncri1.partners.org/ProACT/Home/Index) consists of fully de-identified ALS patient data collected since 1990 from clinical trials donated by PRO-ACT consortia (latest data update on August 2022) [23]. Data came from available select datasets: Demographics, ALSFRS-R (ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised), Subject ALS History, Family History, and riluzole use. The PRO-ACT database design and features have been previously described elsewhere [24].
Study Variables and Data Analysis
Databases were evaluated separately to identify variables that allowed for similar comparison. Age of participants at the time of enrollment in the Registry or the clinical trial studies conducted by PRO-ACT consortia, sex, ethnicity, and race* were selected for demographic comparisons (*See Supplemental Methods). The frequency of missing or unknown race was estimated separately to capture missing race information. ALS symptom-related variables such as age at diagnosis, age at symptom onset, site of symptom onset*, symptom duration, family history of ALS*, ALSFRS-R, and riluzole use were selected (*See Supplemental Methods). If participants had multiple ALSFRS-R entries, only the first record or an entry closer to the time of enrollment was chosen. We also extracted self-reported data of the Registry enrollees with history of ever participating in any ALS research studies. Data distribution was tested for normality, and parametric or nonparametric test was conducted accordingly. Frequency, median, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for descriptive statistics; Wilcoxon rank-sum or Pearson χ2 was used accordingly to test the difference in sample distribution and proportions. All analyses were performed using Stata 17 (StataCorp LLC, Texas, U.S.A).
Results
Due to the nature of self-reporting in the Registry and consolidated clinical records collected under different trial study protocols for the data in PRO-ACT, the frequency of responses varied for each evaluation. The total number of subjects in the database was 10,471 for the Registry and 11,675 for the data in PRO-ACT (Table 1). Median age of participants in the Registry (at the time of enrollment) was greater, at 61 years old (Interquartile range, IQR 14), than the participants in PRO-ACT (at the time of recruitment) at 57 years old (IQR 17). Sixty to 64% of the participants in both databases were between 50 and 69 years old. Nonetheless, PRO-ACT had greater representation of younger (≤ 59 years old) participants at about 57% compared to the Registry enrollees (43%). Similarly, when examining the age distribution of the research study participation in the Registry portal database alone, a greater proportion of those less than 50 years of age reported ever participating in ALS research studies at 28.6% (vs. 20.2%) than the older age groups (Table 2).
Participants in both databases were predominantly male, non-Hispanic, and White. While more participants of Hispanic ethnicity were found in the PRO-ACT database (7.0% vs 3.2%), Black/African American (2.3% vs. 1.7%) and American Indian/Alaska Native (0.4% vs 0.1%) were found in greater percentages in the Registry portal (Table 1). The difference between other race categories was not statistically significant. However, racial information was captured at a different percentage in the studied databases. A statistically significant large number of clinical trial recruits in the PRO-ACT database had missing or unknown race information compared to the Registry database (31.9% vs 2.1%, Table 1). When research study participation was examined among different ethnicity and racial groups in the Registry enrollees, there was a greater, but not significantly different, participation by those of Hispanic ethnicity (25.0% vs. 21.3%) and White (21.6%) compared to other groups (Table 3).
Percentages of participants with lumbar (71.5% vs 72.2%) or bulbar (22.1% vs. 22.5%) onset were similarly reported (Table 4). The median age at symptom onset (60 vs. 55 years old) and at ALS diagnosis (60 vs. 56 years old) was higher in the Registry data compared to PRO-ACT. While time between self-reported symptom onset and diagnosis was longer in Registry participants (11 vs. 9 months), self-reported ALSFRS-R total scores were higher (34 vs. 29). Riluzole use (80.3% vs. 64.7%) and family history of ALS were reported at a greater proportion in the participants of PRO-ACT compared to the Registry (18.3% vs. 6.2%, Table 4).
Discussion
In April 2022, the FDA published a guidance for the specific purpose of improving racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion from disproportionately under-represented populations in clinical trials [33]. However, it is also recommended to diversify the inclusion of patient characteristics such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, geography, varying physical and cognitive abilities, and co-morbidities as they can provide important information when evaluating the safety and efficacy of the medical device or therapeutics. Whether this FDA guidance will be implemented in the future is pending as of date, but the importance of reinforcing the diverse representation in clinical trials is realized [34].
Clinical characteristics of those enrolled in the Registry between 2010 and 2015 have been previously described [35]. Here, we analyzed the Registry portal data updated through 2021 and compared the demographics and ALS-related characteristics with the study participants compiled in PRO-ACT. We found a statistically significant difference in the age distribution, where a greater proportion of Registry enrollees were older than 60 years of age, while those younger than 50 were more represented in the PRO-ACT database. These age differences are expected since the PRO-ACT database is comprised of clinical trial data, which is inherently skewed to a younger cohort resulting from potentially strict eligibility criteria. Similarly, this pattern is also seen among the Registry enrollees reporting ever participating in the research studies.
Historically, improving representation of elderly adults in clinical trials has been challenging and lacking across all disciplines of clinical trials [30, 32, 36,37,38]. Older participants are more likely to have co-morbidities, increased risk potential for complications from drug interaction with medications they are currently taking for age-related health conditions, and have other attributes that may confound with outcome assessment [33, 36,37,38,39]. Such variables may introduce undesirable reactions to drug response and efficacy measurements which may weaken the robustness of overall data. However, the lack of inclusion of the geriatric participants may demonstrate poor generalizability of the drug effectiveness in the real world, outside of controlled research setting [40, 41].
ALS is a rare disease affecting all genders, races, age groups, and geography. Prevalence and incidence rates of ALS may vary globally [13, 16, 42, 43], owing to differences largely in genetic background, disease surveillance, and case ascertainment methods. Nonetheless, pieces of literature characterize the disease mainly affecting non-Hispanic, White, male, and those between 55–70 years of age. Analyses of U.S. administrative national databases [9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and independent analysis of state and metropolitan ALS cases [44] reported similar patterns of demographic attributes.
As expected, over 94% of participants in our analysis were White. The representation of minority groups was small in both databases, but the percentages of Black/African American and American Indian/Alaska Native groups were greater in the Registry. Surprisingly, over 31% of the racial information was either missing or unknown in the PRO-ACT database. A consideration of unknown race in the estimation decreases the White demographic to 65% (data not shown) for the PRO-ACT database. It is unclear how the race information is recorded for those recruited for clinical trials, and what role racial background plays in the clinical trial design or outcome assessment.
The study also evaluated participation by minority group compared to White race group among the Registry enrollees. Black/African Americans self-reported the least participation in ALS research studies compared to other race, although a large margin of error did not yield a significant difference in comparison. We also saw slightly greater percentages in Hispanic than non-Hispanic to ever participate in ALS research studies, though this was not significantly different. Improving the recruitment of under-represented racial groups is one of the key areas addressed in the Federal incentive [33] and continuously identified as a lacking characteristic of clinical trials [31, 34, 45, 46]. Some studies indicate less willingness and a greater presence of fear in African Americans or Hispanics to participate in medical research studies [47,48,49]. This is compounded by other factors such as social inequity, lack of awareness of trials, mistrust in the healthcare system, and inadequate communication [46, 49]. However, other studies found minorities to be just as willing to participate in medical research [48, 50]. In our comparison among the Registry enrollees, we also found differences in research study participation to be negligible.
In assessing the ALS-associated clinical data, the limb was the most reported site of onset. Lower age at symptom onset and at diagnosis and shorter symptom duration until medical diagnosis reported for PRO-ACT participants reflect strict, or preferred, eligibility criteria of ALS clinical trials [22]. But this distinction too is becoming less relevant when considering the disease heterogeneity of ALS, with different clinical phenotypes and progression rates, and variable responses to medications and treatments [25, 51]. Surprisingly, we saw higher self-reported ALSFRS-R scores in the Registry data than in the PRO-ACT. ALSFRS-R has been evaluated as a good prognostic marker for disease severity and ALS progression [52,53,54,55]. But patients perceive ALSFRS-R questions to be difficult in understanding when self-evaluating the functional capabilities [56]. This subjectivity can inaccurately reflect disease severity or potentially introduce unintended bias with the professionally administered evaluation, as would have been likely for the participants of PRO-ACT. Indeed, a study evaluating inter- and intra-rater variability in the self-administration version of ALSFRS-R saw patients reporting a higher score than the evaluators despite acceptable inter- and intra-rater reliability and reproducibility [53]. Furthermore, a potential rater variability in evaluation performance among the trained health professionals may be present which can arise from variable training intervals and mode of training [57].
Riluzole has been a standard of care and treatment for ALS since its approval [5]. According to one retrospective study, the benefit of riluzole was the greatest for those in late-stage disease at a moderate dosage of 100 mg/day [58] as measured by time spent at that specific stage, while a separate study indicated an early intervention was associated with increased survival rate by 2 months [59]. Our assessment showed a greater proportion of riluzole use in PRO-ACT participants compared to the Registry enrollees (80.3% vs 64.7%). This discrepancy may be partially explained by the larger cohort of younger patients in the PRO-ACT database. A study on factors influencing riluzole prescription among ALS patients in a long-term stay home in Ontario has found age to be negatively associated with riluzole use [60]. Another study investigating riluzole prescription among participants from the Clinical Audit Research and Evaluation of Motor Neuron Disease platform has shown older patients not offered riluzole as a treatment option [61]. It is possible that Registry participants use different medications (e.g., edaravone) other than riluzole, or may have discontinued the use, which may explain the lower riluzole use percentage. Unfortunately, a comparison with the PRO-ACT database is not feasible due to a lack of identifying variables for medications other than riluzole in both databases.
About 10% of ALS cases are attributable to an inheritable genetic cause while other cases have undetermined or little-known genetic and non-genetic etiology. A mutation in C9ORF72 is the most common genetic trait of familial ALS patients of Caucasian/European background [62, 63] compared with other genes such as SOD1, TARDBP, and FUS to a lesser prevalence [64]. But the magnitude of a familial genetic link differs based on the region and ethnic/racial background of the sample population being studied [62, 64, 65]. Family history of ALS was reported in greater percentage among the recruits of PRO-ACT at 18.3% compared to 6.2% for the Registry. With genetic screening available to detect if family members of ALS patients carry the mutation, gene therapy clinical trials often target the pre-symptomatic carriers of the pathogenic hereditary mutation form [66]. While those clinical trials may have a specific experimental design and target such a cohort, at least one other study has noted patients with familial ALS history are often excluded from the trials [22]. It is unknown how many of the clinical trials represented in PRO-ACT databases have specifically recruited those with a family history of ALS, as with other specifics and the eligibility criteria for the studies.
Limitations
While the PRO-ACT database represents a single source of publicly available de-identified, merged multi-year records of ALS patients participating in clinical trials, the data are from a limited number of consortia. The database is not inclusive of participants of all available ALS clinical trials that have been conducted in the past or currently being conducted. There is an inherent variability introduced in the effort to harmonize trial data consolidated under different research study protocols. Despite a large sample size, different data collection methods and data standardization may have introduced variance overall.
Unlike cancer and many communicable diseases [67], ALS is not considered a notifiable disease in the U.S. This makes capturing ALS cases at the local, state, and national level challenging, which becomes a significant barrier to ascertaining a complete case count for the estimation of disease burden in the U.S. In addition, our recent evaluation of ALS cases among the U.S. adult population using capture-recapture methods revealed missing case ascertainment of about 27% [15]. Those underrepresented in the Registry may be younger ALS patients and those who have health insurance through private sectors. They are less likely to be captured by the national administrative database such as CMS, VHA, or VBA. Data in the Registry portal are self-reported while data of patients recruited in clinical trials in the PRO-ACT database may have been recorded or determined by the medical professionals from clinical examinations during trial visits. In addition, the portal data consist of information collected in 2010–2021 while the PRO-ACT database consists of clinical trial data donated by participating consortia since 1990 with the latest data publicly made available in August 2022. The latest year of collection is not provided. While these two databases are not mutually exclusive, it is not feasible to verify the presence of a same individual in both databases as personal identification is not disclosed for deduplication.
Conclusion
Addressing the discrepancy of the demographic niche in both the general ALS patient population as recognized in the Registry portal and those being recruited for clinical trials may increase the generalizability of study outcomes. Considering the shortcoming of racial diversity and inclusion in clinical trials for therapeutics in other disciplines, our findings in participant characteristics reflect a similar pattern of concerns. The analysis has shown an underrepresentation of elderly patients and minority populations in clinical trials and incomplete racial background information. In addition, there was a disproportionate subgroup of different disease duration and progression. Clinical trial enrollment may be limited by preset criteria. Nonetheless, refinement of study patient preference may be needed to allow for greater participation of the general ALS population, as those excluded from the clinical trial enrollment represent a patient population with unmet needs. The Registry portal provides a tool to improve the recruitment effort targeting patients that are often understudied. Such an improvement could then enhance the ability of researchers to diversify the patient pool for clinical trials.
Data Availability
Data for PRO-ACT is publicly available at https://ncri1.partners.org/ProACT/Home/Index upon approval of request. De-identified data of participants of the National ALS Registry web portal, including the data used for current study, are available upon reasonable request through an application process at https://www.cdc.gov/alsresearch/ResearchersandClinicians_ResearcherRequests.html.
Change history
30 July 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02110-0
References
Wijesekera LC, Leigh PN. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009;4:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-1172-4-3.
Chio A, Logroscino G, Hardiman O, et al. Prognostic factors in ALS: a critical review. Amyotroph Lateral Scler. 2009;10(5–6):310–23. https://doi.org/10.3109/17482960802566824.
Brown RH, Al-Chalabi A. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. New England J Med. 2017;377(2):162–72. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1603471.
Dharmadasa T, Kiernan MC. Riluzole, disease stage and survival in ALS. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(5):385–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30091-7.
Jaiswal MK. Riluzole and edaravone: a tale of two amyotrophic lateral sclerosis drugs. Med Res Rev. 2019;39(2):733–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/med.21528.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. FDA Approval of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Drug Represents Progress, But We’re Not Done. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Accessed November 9, 2022. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/news-events/directors-messages/all-directors-messages/fda-approval-amyotrophic-lateral-sclerosis-als-drug-represents-progress-were-not-done
Biogen. FDA grants accelerated approval for QALSODY™ (tofersen) for SOD1-ALS, a major scientific advancement as the first treatment to target a genetic cause of ALS. Accessed May 1, 2023. https://investors.biogen.com/news-releases/news-release-details/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-qalsodytm-tofersen-sod1-als
ALS Registry Act, Pub. L. No. 110–373, Oct. 8, 2008, 122 Stat 4047–4050.
Mehta P, Antao V, Kaye W, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - United States, 2010–2011. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Re Surveillance Summaries. 2014;63(7):1–13.
Mehta P, Kaye W, Bryan L, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - United States, 2012–2013. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep Surveillance Summaries. 2016;65(8):1–12.
Mehta P, Kaye W, Raymond J, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - United States, 2015. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 2018;67(46):1285–9.
Mehta P, Kaye W, Raymond J, et al. 2018 Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - United States. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 2014;67(7):216–8.
Mehta P, Raymond J, Punjani R, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States using established and novel methodologies, 2017. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(1–2):108–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2022.2059380.
Mehta P, Raymond J, Punjani R, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), United States, 2016. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2022;23(3–4):220–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2021.1949021.
Mehta P, Raymond J, Zhang Y, et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2018;2023:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2023.2245858.
Mehta P, Raymond J, Punjani R, et al. Incidence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States, 2014–2016. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2022;23(5–6):378–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2021.2023190.
Larson TC, Kaye W, Mehta P, Horton DK. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis mortality in the United States, 2011–2014. Neuroepidemiology. 2018;51(1–2):96–103. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488891.
Mehta P, Raymond J, Han MK, et al. Recruitment of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for clinical trials and epidemiological studies: descriptive study of the National ALS Registry’s Research Notification Mechanism. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(12):e28021. https://doi.org/10.2196/28021.
Malek AM, Stickler DE, Antao VC, Horton DK. The National ALS Registry: a recruitment tool for research. Muscle Nerve. 2014;50(5):830–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24421.
Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW. Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J Child Neurol. 2013;28(9):1142–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073813495959.
Day S, Jonker AH, Lau LPL, et al. Recommendations for the design of small population clinical trials. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13(1):195. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-018-0931-2.
van Eijk RPA, Westeneng HJ, Nikolakopoulos S, et al. Refining eligibility criteria for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials. Neurology. 2019;92(5):e451–60. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000006855.
PRO-ACT Consortium. Pooled resource open-access ALS clinical trials database. Accessed July, 2022. https://ncri1.partners.org/proact
Atassi N, Berry J, Shui A, et al. The PRO-ACT database: design, initial analyses, and predictive features. Neurology. 2014;83(19):1719–25. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000951.
Goyal NA, Berry JD, Windebank A, et al. Addressing heterogeneity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis CLINICAL TRIALS. Muscle Nerve. 2020;62(2):156–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26801.
Kueffner R, Zach N, Bronfeld M, et al. Stratification of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: a crowdsourcing approach. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):690. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36873-4.
van Eijk RPA, Nikolakopoulos S, Roes KCB, et al. Innovating clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology. 2021;97(11):528–36. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000012545.
Strong MJ, Swash M. Finding common ground on the site of onset of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurology. 2022;99(23):1042–8. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000201387.
Tan YY, Papez V, Chang WH, Mueller SH, Denaxas S, Lai AG. Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: an external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(10):e674–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00186-6.
Lau SWJ, Huang Y, Hsieh J, et al. Participation of older adults in clinical trials for new drug applications and biologics license applications from 2010 through 2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(10):e2236149. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36149.
Amorrortu RP, Arevalo M, Vernon SW, et al. Recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities to clinical trials conducted within specialty clinics: an intervention mapping approach. Trials. 2018;19(1):115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2507-9.
van Marum RJ. Underrepresentation of the elderly in clinical trials, time for action. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020;86(10):2014–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14539.
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Diversity Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations in Clinical Trials Guidance for Industry. 2022.
Hwang TJ, Brawley OW. New federal incentives for diversity in clinical trials. New England J Med. 2022;385(15):1347–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2209043.
Raymond J, Oskarsson B, Mehta P, Horton K. Clinical characteristics of a large cohort of US participants enrolled in the National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Registry, 2010–2015. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2019;20(5–6):413–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2019.1612435.
Kazmierska J. Do we protect or discriminate? Representation of senior adults in clinical trials. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2012;18(1):6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpor.2012.08.006.
Vitale C, Fini M, Spoletini I, Lainscak M, Seferovic P, Rosano GM. Under-representation of elderly and women in clinical trials. Int J Cardiol. 2017;232:216–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.01.018.
Pitkala KH, Strandberg TE. Clinical trials in older people. Age Ageing. 2022; 51(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afab282.
Herrera AP, Snipes SA, King DW, Torres-Vigil I, Goldberg DS, Weinberg AD. Disparate inclusion of older adults in clinical trials: priorities and opportunities for policy and practice change. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S105-12. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.162982.
He Z, Tang X, Yang X, et al. Clinical trial generalizability assessment in the big data era: a review. Clin Transl Sci. 2020; 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12764.
Stuart EA, Ackerman B, Westreich D. Generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations: design and analysis possibilities. Res Soc Work Pract. 2018;28(5):532–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517720730.
Longinetti E, Fang F. Epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: an update of recent literature. Curr Opin Neurol. 2019;32(5):771–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000730.
Chio A, Logroscino G, Traynor BJ, et al. Global epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review of the published literature. Neuroepidemiology. 2013;41(2):118–30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351153.
Rechtman L, Jordan H, Wagner L, Horton DK, Kaye W. Racial and ethnic differences among amyotrophic lateral sclerosis cases in the United States. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2015;16(1–2):65–71. https://doi.org/10.3109/21678421.2014.971813.
Nazha B, Mishra M, Pentz R, Owonikoko TK. Enrollment of racial minorities in clinical trials: old problem assumes new urgency in the age of immunotherapy. Am Soc Cinical Oncol Educ Book. 2019;39:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_100021.
Clark LT, Watkins L, Pina IL, et al. Increasing diversity in clinical trials: overcoming critical barriers. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2019;44(5):148–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.11.002.
Shavers VL, Lynch CF, Burmeister LF. Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:248–56.
Katz RV, Gree L, Kressin NR, Claudio C, Wang MQ, Russel S. Willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical studies: confirmatory findings from a follow-up study using the Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1052–60.
Harris Y, Gorelick PB, Samuels P, Bempong I. Why African Americans may not be participating in clinical trials. J Natl Med Assoc. 1996;88(10):630–4.
Wendler D, Kington R, Madans J, et al. Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research? PLoS Med. 2006;3(2):e19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030019.
Chio A, Canosa A, Gallo S, et al. ALS clinical trials: do enrolled patients accurately represent the ALS population? Neurology. 2011;77(15):1432–7. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e318232ab9b.
Montes J, Levy G, Albert S, et al. Development and evaluation of a self-administered version of the ALSFRS-R. Neurology. 2006;67(7):1294–6. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000238505.22066.fc.
Bakker LA, Schroder CD, Tan HHG, et al. Development and assessment of the inter-rater and intra-rater reproducibility of a self-administration version of the ALSFRS-R. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020;91(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2019-321138.
Smith RA, Macklin EA, Myers KJ, et al. Assessment of bulbar function in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: validation of a self-report scale (Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale). Euro J Neurol. 2018;25(7):907–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.13638.
Kimura F, Fujimura C, Ishida S, et al. Progression rate of ALSFRS-R at time of diagnosis predicts survival time in ALS. Neurology. 2006;66(2):265–7.
Boyce D, Robinson M, Cedarbaum JM, Shank LM, McDermott CJ, van Eijk RPA. A qualitative evaluation of the revised amyotrophic lateral sclerosis functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R) by the patient community: a web-based cross-sectional survey. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(3–4):272–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2022.2140592.
Hamilton J, Mohan P, Kittle G, Shefner JM. Impact of mode of training and recertification on ALSFRS-R rater performance. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(3–4):289–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2022.2149344.
Fang T, Al Khleifat A, Meurgey JH, et al. Stage at which riluzole treatment prolongs survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a retrospective analysis of data from a dose-ranging study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(5):416–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30054-1.
Thakore NJ, Lapin BR, Mitsumoto H, Pooled Resource Open-Access Als Clinical Trials C. Early initiation of riluzole may improve absolute survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Muscle Nerve. 2022;66(6):702–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27724.
Kim Y-J. Cost effectiveness analysis of riluzole for ALS in Ontario home care setting. University of Waterloo; 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/12038
Jayaprakash K, Glasmacher SA, Pang B, et al. Riluzole prescribing, uptake and treatment discontinuation in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in Scotland. J Neurol. 2020;267(8):2459–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-020-09919-9.
Smith BN, Newhouse S, Shatunov A, et al. The C9ORF72 expansion mutation is a common cause of ALS+/-FTD in Europe and has a single founder. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(1):102–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.98.
Chio A, Borghero G, Restagno G, et al. Clinical characteristics of patients with familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis carrying the pathogenic GGGGCC hexanucleotide repeat expansion of C9ORF72. Brain. 2012;135(Pt 3):784–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awr366.
Boylan K. Familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurol Clin. 2015;33(4):807–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncl.2015.07.001.
Liu X, He J, Gao FB, Gitler AD, Fan D. The epidemiology and genetics of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in China. Brain Res. 2018;1693(Pt A):121–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2018.02.035.
Cappella M, Pradat PF, Querin G, Biferi MG. Beyond the traditional clinical trials for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and the future impact of gene therapy. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2021;8(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.3233/JND-200531.
Coates RJ, Stanbury M, Jajosky R, et al. Introduction to the summary of notifiable noninfectious conditions and disease outbreaks - United States. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;63(55):1–4.
Acknowledgements
PRO-ACT Consortium (https://ncri1.partners.org/ProACT/Document/DisplayLatest/6)*
*Data used in the preparation of this article were obtained from the Pooled Resource Open-Access ALS Clinical Trials (PRO-ACT) Database, managed and sponsored by ALS Association and the Neurological Clinical Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital. As such, the following organizations and individuals within the PRO-ACT Consortium contributed to the design and implementation of the PRO-ACT Database and/or provided data, but did not participate in the analysis of the data or the writing of this report:
• ALS Therapy Alliance
• Cytokinetics, Inc.
• Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Knopp Biosciences
• Neuraltus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Neurological Clinical Research Institute, MGH
• Northeast ALS Consortium
• Novartis
• Prize4Life Israel
• Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
• Sanofi
• Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
• The ALS Association
Funding
This work is supported by the National ALS Registry, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study concept and design. Data collection were performed by MH, JR, and TL. Data analysis was performed and reviewed by MH and TL. The manuscript was written by MH and all authors reviewed, commented, and edited on the previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
Not applicable.
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Competing Interests
All authors have no competing interests and have nothing to declare.
Disclaimer
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original version of this article was revised: In Table 3, the value for the Race group total was incorrectly reported. The correct total is 3899 instead of 3.899.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Han, M., Raymond, J., Larson, T.C. et al. Comparison of Demographics: National Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Registry and Clinical Trials Data. J. Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02047-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-024-02047-4