ImportanceCerebral small vessel disease (SVD) causes a quarter of strokes and is the most common pathology underlying vascular cognitive impairment and dementia. An important step to developing new treatments is better trial methodology. Disease mechanisms in SVD differ from other stroke etiologies; therefore, treatments need to be evaluated in cohorts in which SVD has been well characterized. Furthermore, SVD itself can be caused by a number of different pathologies, the most common of which are arteriosclerosis and cerebral amyloid angiopathy. To date, there have been few sufficiently powered high-quality randomized clinical trials in SVD, and inconsistent trial methodology has made interpretation of some findings difficult.ObservationsTo address these issues and develop guidelines for optimizing design of clinical trials in SVD, the Framework for Clinical Trials in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease (FINESSE) was created under the auspices of the International Society of Vascular Behavioral and Cognitive Disorders. Experts in relevant aspects of SVD trial methodology were convened, and a structured Delphi consensus process was used to develop recommendations. Areas in which recommendations were developed included optimal choice of study populations, choice of clinical end points, use of brain imaging as a surrogate outcome measure, use of circulating biomarkers for participant selection and as surrogate markers, novel trial designs, and prioritization of therapeutic agents using genetic data via Mendelian randomization.Conclusions and RelevanceThe FINESSE provides recommendations for trial design in SVD for which there are currently few effective treatments. However, new insights into understanding disease pathogenesis, particularly from recent genetic studies, provide novel pathways that could be therapeutically targeted. In addition, whether other currently available cardiovascular interventions are specifically effective in SVD, as opposed to other subtypes of stroke, remains uncertain. FINESSE provides a framework for design of trials examining such therapeutic approaches.

Introduction In the context of the development of pharmaceutical interventions, expectations and experiences of participants are essential. Their insights may be particularly helpful to address the challenges of recruiting and retaining participants for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical trials. We examined clinical trial participants’ experiences to optimize trial design in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Method In this mixed-methods study, we included adults who participated in sponsor-initiated AD trials at Brain Research Center, a clinical trial organization in the Netherlands. Participants (N = 71, age 69 ± 6.5, 54%F, 19 cognitively normal (CN), 19 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 33 AD dementia) first completed an online survey. Diagnostic group differences were investigated using chi-square tests or one-way ANOVAs. Next, a subsample (N = 12; 8 = CN, 4 = MCI) participated in focus groups to gain in-depth insight into their opinions on optimizing trial design from a participants’ point of view. Audio recordings from focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic content analysis by two independent researchers. Results Most reported motives for enrolment included “to benefit future generations” (89%), followed by “for science” (66%) and “better monitoring” (42%). Frequent suggestions for increasing willingness to participate included a smaller chance to receive placebo (n = 38, 54%), shorter travel times (n = 27, 38%), and sharing individual results of different assessments (n = 57, 80%), as well as receiving trial results (n = 52, 73). Highest visual analogue burden scores (0–100) were found for the lumbar puncture (M = 47.2, SD = 38.2) and cognitive assessments (M = 27.2, SD = 25.7). Results did not differ between diagnostic groups, nor between patient and caregiver participants (all p-values>.05). Two additional themes emerged from the focus groups: “trial design,” such as follow-up visit(s) after participating, and “trial center,” including the relevance of a professional and empathic staff. Conclusion Relevant factors include expectation management and careful planning of high-burden assessments, provision of individual feedback, and prioritizing professionalism and empathy throughout conduct of the trial. Our findings provide insight into participants’ priorities to increase willingness to participate and can be used to optimize trial success.