4.7 Article

Requiring an amyloid-β1-42 biomarker for prodromal Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment does not lead to more efficient clinical trials

Journal

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages 367-377

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.07.004

Keywords

Alzheimer disease; Mild cognitive impairment; Biomarkers; Clinical trials; Simulations; Amyloid-beta protein; Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI); Alzheimer's disease assessment scale; Clinical dementia rating

Funding

  1. Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) [NIH U01 AG024904]
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  4. NIH [P30 AG010129, K01 AG030514]
  5. The Dana Foundation
  6. USC Alzheimer's Disease Research Center [NIH P50 AG05142, NIH T32 HL072757]
  7. Alexion
  8. Accentia
  9. Bayer
  10. Barofold
  11. Biogen-Idec
  12. CibaVision
  13. Enzo
  14. Eisai
  15. Genentech
  16. Millenium
  17. Novartis
  18. Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers
  19. Peptimmune
  20. Klein-Buendel Incorporated
  21. Incyte
  22. Somnus
  23. Teva
  24. Visioneering Technologies
  25. Alzheimer's Association for a registry for dementia and cognitive impairment trials
  26. Baxter
  27. Elan Pharmaceuticals
  28. Johnson Johnson
  29. Eli Lilly
  30. Myriad
  31. Pfizer
  32. Abbott Laboratories
  33. AC Immune
  34. Allergan
  35. Allon
  36. Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation
  37. AstraZeneca
  38. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  39. Elan
  40. Exonhit
  41. Forest
  42. GlaxoSmithKline
  43. Ipsen
  44. Lundbeck
  45. Medavante
  46. Medivation
  47. Merck
  48. Roche
  49. Sanofi-Aventis
  50. Schering-Plough
  51. Servier
  52. Toyama
  53. Transition Therapeutics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Low cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta(1-42) concentration and high total-tau/A beta(1-42) ratio have been recommended to support the diagnosis of prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and also to select patients for clinical trials (Shaw et al, Ann Neurol 2009;65:403-13; Dubois et al, Lancet Neurol 2007;6:734-46). Methods: We tested this recommendation with clinical trials simulations using patients from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who fulfilled the following entry criteria: (1) aMCI, (2) aMCI with CSF A beta(1-42) <= 192 mg/mL, (3) and aMCI with total-tau/A beta(1-47) > 0.39. For each criterion, we randomly resampled the database obtaining samples for 1000 trials for each trial scenario, planning for 1 or 2 year trials with samples from 50 to 400 patients per treatment or placebo group, with up to 40% dropouts, outcomes after using the AD assessment scale-cognitive subscale and clinical dementia rating scale with effect sizes ranging from 0.15 to 0.75, and calculated statistical power. Findings: Approximately 70% to 74% of aMCI patients with CSF measures met biomarker criteria. The addition of the low A beta(1-42) or high tau/A beta(1-42) requirement resulted in minimal or no increase in the power of the trials compared with enrolling aMCI without requiring the biomarker criteria. Slightly larger mean differences between the placebo and treatment groups fulfilling biomarker criteria were offset by increased outcome variability within the groups. Interpretations: Although patients with aMCI or patients with prodromal AD meeting CSF biomarkers criteria were slightly more cognitively impaired and showed greater decline than patients with aMCI diagnosed without considering the biomarkers, the requirement of biomarker-positive patients would most likely not result in more efficient clinical trials, and trials would take longer because fewer patients would be available. A CSF A beta(1-41) marker, however, could be useful as an explanatory variable or covariate when warranted by the action of a drug. (c) 2010 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available