Using practice effects for targeted trials or sub-group analysis in Alzheimer\u27s disease: How practice effects predict change over time

OBJECTIVE: To describe the presence of practice effects in persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and to evaluate how practice effects affect cognitive progression and the outcome of clinical trials. METHODS: Using data from a meta-database consisting of 18 studies including participants from the Alzheimer disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) and the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) with ADAS-Cog11 as the primary outcome, we defined practice effects based on the improvement in the first two ADAS-Cog11 scores and then estimated the presence of practice effects and compared the cognitive progression between participants with and without practice effects. The robustness of practice effects was investigated using CDR SB, an outcome independent the definition itself. Furthermore, we evaluated how practice effects can affect sample size estimation. RESULTS: The overall percent of practice effects for AD participants was 39.0% and 53.3% for MCI participants. For AD studies, the mean change from baseline to 2 years was 12.8 points for the non-practice effects group vs 7.4 for the practice effects group; whereas for MCI studies, it was 4.1 for non-practice effects group vs 0.2 for the practice effects group. AD participants without practice effects progressed 0.9 points faster than those with practice effects over a period of 2 years in CDR-SB; whereas for MCI participants, the difference is 0.7 points. The sample sizes can be different by over 35% when estimated based on participants with/without practice effects. CONCLUSION: Practice effects were prevalent and robust in persons with AD or MCI and affected the cognitive progression and sample size estimation. Planning of future AD or MCI clinical trials should account for practice effects to avoid underpower or considers target trials or stratification analysis based on practice effects

The relationship of history of psychiatric and substance use disorders on risk of dementia among racial and ethnic groups in the United States

IntroductionDementia is characterized by significant declines in cognitive, physical, social, and behavioral functioning, and includes multiple subtypes that differ in etiology. There is limited evidence of the influence of psychiatric and substance use history on the risk of dementia subtypes among older underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities in the United States. Our study explored the role of psychiatric and substance use history on the risk of etiology-specific dementias: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD), in the context of a racially and ethnically diverse sample based on national data.MethodsWe conducted secondary data analyses based on the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (N = 17,592) which is comprised a large, racially, and ethnically diverse cohort of adult research participants in the network of US Alzheimer Disease Research Centers (ADRCs). From 2005 to 2019, participants were assessed for history of five psychiatric and substance use disorders (depression, traumatic brain injury, other psychiatric disorders, alcohol use, and other substance use). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the influence of psychiatric and substance use history on the risk of AD and VaD subtypes, and the interactions between psychiatric and substance use history and race/ethnicity with adjustment for demographic and health-related factors.ResultsIn addition to other substance use, having any one type of psychiatric and substance use history increased the risk of developing AD by 22–51% and VaD by 22–53%. The risk of other psychiatric disorders on AD and VaD risk varied by race/ethnicity. For non-Hispanic White people, history of other psychiatric disorders increased AD risk by 27%, and VaD risk by 116%. For African Americans, AD risk increased by 28% and VaD risk increased by 108% when other psychiatric disorder history was present.ConclusionThe findings indicate that having psychiatric and substance use history increases the risk of developing AD and VaD in later life. Preventing the onset and recurrence of such disorders may prevent or delay the onset of AD and VaD dementia subtypes. Prevention efforts should pay particular attention to non-Hispanic White and African American older adults who have history of other psychiatric disorders.Future research should address diagnostic shortcomings in the measurement of such disorders in ADRCs, especially with regard to diverse racial and ethnic groups

Data-driven identification of endophenotypes of Alzheimer's disease progression: implications for clinical trials and therapeutic interventions

Abstract Background Given the complex and progressive nature of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), a precision medicine approach for diagnosis and treatment requires the identification of patient subgroups with biomedically distinct and actionable phenotype definitions. Methods Longitudinal patient-level data for 1160 AD patients receiving placebo or no treatment with a follow-up of up to 18 months were extracted from an integrated clinical trials dataset. We used latent class mixed modelling (LCMM) to identify patient subgroups demonstrating distinct patterns of change over time in disease severity, as measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale—cognitive subscale score. The optimal number of subgroups (classes) was selected by the model which had the lowest Bayesian Information Criterion. Other patient-level variables were used to define these subgroups’ distinguishing characteristics and to investigate the interactions between patient characteristics and patterns of disease progression. Results The LCMM resulted in three distinct subgroups of patients, with 10.3% in Class 1, 76.5% in Class 2 and 13.2% in Class 3. While all classes demonstrated some degree of cognitive decline, each demonstrated a different pattern of change in cognitive scores, potentially reflecting different subtypes of AD patients. Class 1 represents rapid decliners with a steep decline in cognition over time, and who tended to be younger and better educated. Class 2 represents slow decliners, while Class 3 represents severely impaired slow decliners: patients with a similar rate of decline to Class 2 but with worse baseline cognitive scores. Class 2 demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of statins use; Class 3 showed lower levels of blood monocytes and serum calcium, and higher blood glucose levels. Conclusions Our results, ‘learned’ from clinical data, indicate the existence of at least three subgroups of Alzheimer’s patients, each demonstrating a different trajectory of disease progression. This hypothesis-generating approach has detected distinct AD subgroups that may prove to be discrete endophenotypes linked to specific aetiologies. These findings could enable stratification within a clinical trial or study context, which may help identify new targets for intervention and guide better care

Proportional constrained longitudinal data analysis models for clinical trials in sporadic Alzheimer\u27s disease

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials for sporadic Alzheimer\u27s disease generally use mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) or, to a lesser degree, constrained longitudinal data analysis models (cLDA) as the analysis model with time since baseline as a categorical variable. Inferences using MMRM/cLDA focus on the between-group contrast at the pre-determined, end-of-study assessments, thus are less efficient (eg, less power). METHODS: The proportional cLDA (PcLDA) and proportional MMRM (pMMRM) with time as a categorical variable are proposed to use all the post-baseline data without the linearity assumption on disease progression. RESULTS: Compared with the traditional cLDA/MMRM models, PcLDA or pMMRM lead to greater gain in power (up to 20% to 30%) while maintaining type I error control. DISCUSSION: The PcLDA framework offers a variety of possibilities to model longitudinal data such as proportional MMRM (pMMRM) and two-part pMMRM which can model heterogeneous cohorts more efficiently and model co-primary endpoints simultaneously

Effectiveness of Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND Second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs are widely used to treat psychosis, aggression, and agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease, but their benefits are uncertain and concerns about safety have emerged. We assessed the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs in outpatients with Alzheimer's disease. METHODS In this 42-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 421 outpatients with Alzheimer's disease and psychosis, aggression, or agitation were randomly assigned to receive olanzapine (mean dose, 5.5 mg per day), quetiapine (mean dose, 56.5 mg per day), risperidone (mean dose, 1.0 mg per day), or placebo. Doses were adjusted as needed, and patients were followed for up to 36 weeks. The main outcomes were the time from initial treatment to the discontinuation of treatment for any reason and the number of patients with at least minimal improvement on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) scale at 12 weeks. RESULTS There were no significant differences among treatments with regard to the time to the discontinuation of treatment for any reason: olanzapine (median, 8.1 weeks), quetiapine (median, 5.3 weeks), risperidone (median, 7.4 weeks), and placebo (median, 8.0 weeks) (P=0.52). The median time to the discontinuation of treatment due to a lack of efficacy favored olanzapine (22.1 weeks) and risperidone (26.7 weeks) as compared with quetiapine (9.1 weeks) and placebo (9.0 weeks) (P=0.002). The time to the discontinuation of treatment due to adverse events or intolerability favored placebo. Overall, 24% of patients who received olanzapine, 16% of patients who received quetiapine, 18% of patients who received risperidone, and 5% of patients who received placebo discontinued their assigned treatment owing to intolerability (P=0.009). No significant differences were noted among the groups with regard to improvement on the CGIC scale. Improvement was observed in 32% of patients assigned to olanzapine, 26% of patients assigned to quetiapine, 29% of patients assigned to risperidone, and 21% of patients assigned to placebo (P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS Adverse effects offset advantages in the efficacy of atypical antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of psychosis, aggression, or agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease

Diversity in Alzheimer\u27s Disease Drug Trials: The Importance of Eligibility Criteria

INTRODUCTION: To generalize safety and efficacy findings, it is essential that diverse populations are well represented in Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) drug trials. In this review, we aimed to investigate participant diversity in disease-modifying AD trials over time, and the frequencies of participant eligibility criteria. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, identifying 2247 records. RESULTS: In the 101 included AD trials, participants were predominantly White (median percentage: 94.7%, interquartile range: 81.0-96.7%); and this percentage showed no significant increase or decrease over time (2001-2019). Eligibility criteria such as exclusion of persons with psychiatric illness (78.2%), cardiovascular disease (71.3%) and cerebrovascular disease (68.3%), obligated caregiver attendance (80.2%), and specific Mini-Mental State Examination scores (90.1%; no significant increase/decrease over time) may have led to a disproportionate exclusion of ethnoracially diverse individuals. DISCUSSION: Ethnoracially diverse participants continue to be underrepresented in AD clinical trials. Several recommendations are provided to broaden eligibility criteria

Making the Case for Accelerated Withdrawal of Aducanumab

The controversial approval in June 2021 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of aducanumab (marketed as Aduhelm), Biogen's monoclonal antibody for patients with Alzheimer's disease, raises significant concerns for the dementia field and drug approval process, considering its lack of adequate evidence for clinical efficacy, safety issues, and cost. On 15 December 2021, an international group of clinicians, basic science experts, psychological and social science researchers, lay people with lived experience of dementia, and advocates for public health met to discuss making a recommendation for whether aducanumab's approval should be withdrawn. Attendees considered arguments both in favor of and in opposition to withdrawal and voted unanimously to recommend that the FDA withdraw its approval for aducanumab and to support the Right Care Alliance's filing of a formal Citizen Petition to this effect

The Clinical Promise of Biomarkers of Synapse Damage or Loss in Alzheimer’s Disease

BACKGROUND: Synapse damage and loss are fundamental to the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and lead to reduced cognitive function. The goal of this review is to address the challenges of forging new clinical development approaches for AD therapeutics that can demonstrate reduction of synapse damage or loss. The key points of this review include the following: Synapse loss is a downstream effect of amyloidosis, tauopathy, inflammation, and other mechanisms occurring in AD.Synapse loss correlates most strongly with cognitive decline in AD because synaptic function underlies cognitive performance.Compounds that halt or reduce synapse damage or loss have a strong rationale as treatments of AD.Biomarkers that measure synapse degeneration or loss in patients will facilitate clinical development of such drugs.The ability of methods to sensitively measure synapse density in the brain of a living patient through synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, concentrations of synaptic proteins (e.g., neurogranin or synaptotagmin) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or functional imaging techniques such as quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) provides a compelling case to use these types of measurements as biomarkers that quantify synapse damage or loss in clinical trials in AD. CONCLUSION: A number of emerging biomarkers are able to measure synapse injury and loss in the brain and may correlate with cognitive function in AD. These biomarkers hold promise both for use in diagnostics and in the measurement of therapeutic successes