4.7 Article

Potential Utility of Plasma P-Tau and Neurofilament Light Chain as Surrogate Biomarkers for Preventive Clinical Trials

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 38-45

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000207115

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the effectiveness of longitudinal changes in plasma phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) as surrogate markers for clinical trials in cognitively unimpaired populations. The findings suggest that monitoring plasma markers in such individuals is a viable approach for large-scale interventions.
ObjectiveTo test the utility of longitudinal changes in plasma phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181) and neurofilament light chain (NfL) as surrogate markers for clinical trials targeting cognitively unimpaired (CU) populations.MethodsWe estimated the sample size needed to test a 25% drug effect with 80% of power at a 0.05 level on reducing changes in plasma markers in CU participants from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database.ResultsWe included 257 CU individuals (45.5% males; mean age = 73 [6] years; 32% & beta;-amyloid [A & beta;] positive). Changes in plasma NfL were associated with age, whereas changes in plasma p-tau181 with progression to amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Clinical trials using p-tau181 and NfL would require 85% and 63% smaller sample sizes, respectively, for a 24-month than a 12-month follow-up. A population enrichment strategy using intermediate levels of A & beta; PET (Centiloid 20-40) further reduced the sample size of the 24-month clinical trial using p-tau181 (73%) and NfL (59%) as a surrogate.DiscussionPlasma p-tau181/NfL can potentially be used to monitor large-scale population interventions in CU individuals. The enrollment of CU with intermediate A & beta; levels constitutes the alternative with the largest effect size and most cost-effective for trials testing drug effect on changes in plasma p-tau181 and NfL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据