Background

Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials require enrollment of a participant and a study partner, whose role includes assessing participant cognitive and functional performance. AD trials now investigate early stages of the disease, when participants are not cognitively impaired. This gives rise to the question of whether study partners or participants provide more information in these trials.

Methods

We used data from the AD Cooperative Study Prevention Instrument Project (ADCS-PI) to compare participant and study partner predictions of the participant's current and future cognitive state. We used the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) as a measure of evaluation of the participant's cognitive status and the modified ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (mADCS-PACC) as an objective measure of cognition. Stratifying by cognitive status and study partner type and adjusting for other predictors of the participant's cognitive state, we used random forests along with estimated mean variable importance (eMVI) to assess how well each member of the dyad can predict cognitive state at current and later visits. We also fit linear regression models at each time point and for each scenario.

Results

Participants were better at predicting future cognitive status compared to their study partners regardless of study partner type, though the difference between participants and partners was greatest for non-spousal dyads in the lowest-performing quartile. Cross-sectional assessments differed substantially by dyad type. Within the lowest cognitive performance quartile, participants having a non-spousal study partner outperformed their partners in assessing cognition at later times. Spousal partners, in contrast, outperformed participants later in the study in predicting current cognitive performance.

Conclusions

These results indicate that participants tend to be better at predicting future cognition compared to their study partners regardless of the study partner type. When assessing current cognition, however, spousal study partners perform better at later time points and non-spousal study partners do not provide as much information regarding participant cognitive state.

Background

Prodromal Alzheimer disease (AD) clinical trials enroll patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) meeting biomarker criteria, but specific enrollment criteria vary among trials.

Methods

We used data from AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) MCI participants to assess AD biomarker eligibility, variation in trial outcome measures, and statistical power.

Results

Most (65%) participants meet eligibility criteria based on low cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta (Aβ). Relative to trials enrolling exclusively based on low cerebrospinal fluid Aβ, trials including participants with a high ratio of phosphorylated tau to Aβ would include an additional 15% of participants. Fewer (34% to 62%) participants met criteria for Aβ and tau. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics of modeled trial samples were minimal. Those with low Aβ and high tau showed the greatest change over time on outcome measures.

Conclusions

Eligibility rates for prodromal trials vary depending on the specific biomarker criteria, though differences in demographics and the variation associated with outcome measures are minimal. Broadening inclusion criteria beyond amyloid alone may facilitate recruitment but include patients showing slower progression over time. Biomarker criteria selection should be informed by the goal of enrolling individuals most likely to utilize and benefit from the intervention under investigation in a particular setting.

Background

Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials require enrollment of a participant and a study partner, whose role includes assessing participant cognitive and functional performance. AD trials now investigate early stages of the disease, when participants are not cognitively impaired. This gives rise to the question of whether study partners or participants provide more information in these trials.

Methods

We used data from the AD Cooperative Study Prevention Instrument Project (ADCS-PI) to compare participant and study partner predictions of the participant's current and future cognitive state. We used the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) as a measure of evaluation of the participant's cognitive status and the modified ADCS Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (mADCS-PACC) as an objective measure of cognition. Stratifying by cognitive status and study partner type and adjusting for other predictors of the participant's cognitive state, we used random forests along with estimated mean variable importance (eMVI) to assess how well each member of the dyad can predict cognitive state at current and later visits. We also fit linear regression models at each time point and for each scenario.

Results

Participants were better at predicting future cognitive status compared to their study partners regardless of study partner type, though the difference between participants and partners was greatest for non-spousal dyads in the lowest-performing quartile. Cross-sectional assessments differed substantially by dyad type. Within the lowest cognitive performance quartile, participants having a non-spousal study partner outperformed their partners in assessing cognition at later times. Spousal partners, in contrast, outperformed participants later in the study in predicting current cognitive performance.

Conclusions

These results indicate that participants tend to be better at predicting future cognition compared to their study partners regardless of the study partner type. When assessing current cognition, however, spousal study partners perform better at later time points and non-spousal study partners do not provide as much information regarding participant cognitive state.

Introduction

Alzheimer's disease (AD) trials require enrollment with an informant.

Methods

We assessed relationships between informant replacement and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores across four AD trials. Using generalized estimating equations, we examined associations between replacement and change in ADCS-ADL between successive visits. We used analysis of covariance to estimate the association between replacement and 18-month change from baseline, and an F-test to compare the variance of this change.

Results

Among 1336 participants, 63 (≈5%) experienced replacement. Between-visit mean change in ADCS-ADL was 2.44 points lower comparing replacement to stable informants (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.91, -0.98). The difference in between-visit mean absolute change was 2.38 points (95% CI: 1.24, 3.52). Replacement was not significantly associated with an 18-month change from baseline. The ratio of variances (replacement/stable) was 1.80 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.99).

Discussion

Informant replacement is associated with bias and increased variability between visits and increased variance for overall ADCS-ADL.

Background/aims

The focus of Alzheimer's disease studies has shifted to earlier disease stages, including mild cognitive impairment. Biomarker inclusion criteria are often incorporated into mild cognitive impairment clinical trials to identify individuals with "prodromal Alzheimer's disease" to ensure appropriate drug targets and enrich for participants likely to develop Alzheimer's disease dementia. The use of these eligibility criteria may affect study power.

Methods

We investigated outcome variability and study power in the setting of proof-of-concept prodromal Alzheimer's disease trials that incorporate cerebrospinal fluid levels of total tau (t-tau) and phosphorylated (p-tau) as primary outcomes and how differing biomarker inclusion criteria affect power. We used data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative to model trial scenarios and to estimate the variance and within-subject correlation of total and phosphorylated tau. These estimates were then used to investigate the differences in study power for trials considering these two surrogate outcomes.

Results

Patient characteristics were similar for all eligibility criteria. The lowest outcome variance and highest within-subject correlation were obtained when phosphorylated tau was used as an eligibility criterion, compared to amyloid beta or total tau, regardless of whether total tau or phosphorylated tau were used as primary outcomes. Power increased when eligibility criteria were broadened to allow for enrollment of subjects with either low amyloid beta or high phosphorylated tau.

Conclusion

Specific biomarker inclusion criteria may impact statistical power in trials using total tau or phosphorylated tau as the primary outcome. In concert with other important considerations such as treatment target and population of clinical interest, these results may have implications to the integrity and efficiency of prodromal Alzheimer's disease trial designs.

Introduction

In Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials, participants must enroll with a study partner informant who completes validated study instruments. We hypothesized that mid-trial informant replacement impacts study data in industry-sponsored trials.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of two industry-sponsored AD clinical trials testing semagacestat in mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We assessed the relationships between informant replacement and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Using generalized estimating equations, we assessed bias and variability using mean (bias) and mean absolute (variance) change in ADCS-ADL between successive visits as outcomes. Both models adjusted for a priori-specified potential confounding variables including participant sex, age, informant type, trial, time, previous ADCS-ADL score, and region. To analyze the impact on end-of-study change-from-baseline results, we used an analysis of covariance model to estimate the association between replacement and end-of-study change-from-baseline in ADCS-ADL, in which we adjusted for participant sex, age, informant type, trial, baseline measurement, and region. We conducted an F-test to compare the variances of this change.

Results

Among N = 2637 randomized participants, 69 participants (2.6%) experienced 78 occurrences of replacement. For visits standardized to be 3 months apart, the difference in mean between-visit change in ADCS-ADL was approximately -1.61 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.79, 0.57; P = 0.147), comparing participants who experienced replacement to similar participants who had stable informants. The difference in the mean between-visit absolute change was approximately 2.02 points (95% CI: 0.34, 3.70; P = 0.019). We did not estimate a statistically significant difference in end-of-study change-from-baseline (Est. = -0.70 points; 95% CI: -5.88, 4.48; P = 0.790) or a significant ratio of variances (Est. = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.67, 2.28; P = 0.600) for participants with replacement compared to those with stable informants.

Discussion

Informant replacement was associated with increased between-visit variability but had limited impact on overall trial outcomes.

Highlights

Informant replacement occurred in 2.6% of participants in these industry trials.Informant replacement was associated with increased variance in acute Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living reporting.Informant replacement had a limited impact on overall change-from-baseline outcomes.

Background

Research has revealed that manifest Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia is preceded by preclinical and prodromal phases during which pathology is accumulating but function remains intact. This understanding and concern that disease-modifying interventions initiated at the dementia stage may come too late in the neurodegenerative process to be successful has led to a paradigm shift in AD clinical trials. AD trials now enroll patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and persons with no cognitive symptoms. Trial designs are similar to those enrolling dementia participants. We set out to test the hypothesis that attitudes towards trial design features differ among different potential AD trial populations.

Methods

We sent a survey composed of 37 items assessing specific trial elements to 246 cognitively normal, MCI, and AD dementia participants at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Alzheimer's Disease Research Center (ADRC), from whom we received 91 responses (37 cognitively normal, 32 MCI, and 22 dementia). To quantify willingness to enroll, we created three composite scenarios by summing responses and fitting proportional odds models with a binary outcome variable for whether patients were highly willing to participate in low-, moderate-, or high-risk and burden trials.

Results

MCI participants less frequently correctly self-identified their diagnoses than those with dementia or normal cognition. Compared to dementia patients, the odds of participating in a low-risk, low-burden trial were 12% lower for MCI patients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-3.29) and 70% lower (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09) for cognitively normal participants. With increasing risk and burden, willingness to enroll decreased and the gap in relative willingness between diagnostic groups increased. In the medium-risk, medium-burden scenario, the estimated OR was 0.64 (95% CI 0.17-2.40) for MCI and 0.21 for the cognitively normal (95% CI 0.06-0.77). In the high-risk, high-burden scenario, the estimated OR indicated reduced willingness for MCI (OR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.06-1.15) and cognitively normal respondents (OR = 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.54).

Conclusions

These results suggest that AD trials enrolling predementia populations, especially those requiring frequent visits and implementing biomarker testing procedures, may encounter challenges to enrollment.

Circulating miR-371a-3p has excellent performance in the detection of viable (non-teratoma) germ cell tumor (GCT) pre-orchiectomy; however, its ability to detect occult disease is understudied. To refine the serum miR-371a-3p assay in the minimal residual disease setting we compared performance of raw (Cq) and normalized (∆Cq, RQ) values from prior assays, and validated interlaboratory concordance by aliquot swapping. Revised assay performance was determined in a cohort of 32 patients suspected of occult retroperitoneal disease. Assay superiority was determined by comparing resulting receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves using the Delong method. Pairwise t-tests were used to test for interlaboratory concordance. Performance was comparable when thresholding based on raw Cq vs. normalized values. Interlaboratory concordance of miR-371a-3p was high, but reference genes miR-30b-5p and cel-miR-39-3p were discordant. Introduction of an indeterminate range of Cq 28-35 with a repeat run for any indeterminate improved assay accuracy from 0.84 to 0.92 in a group of patients suspected of occult GCT. We recommend that serum miR-371a-3p test protocols are updated to (a) utilize threshold-based approaches using raw Cq values, (b) continue to include an endogenous (e.g., miR-30b-5p) and exogenous non-human spike-in (e.g., cel-miR-39-3p) microRNA for quality control, and (c) to re-run any sample with an indeterminate result.