OBJECTIVES: The Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial Follow-up Study (ADAPT-FS) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of naproxen and celecoxib for the primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD) several years after cessation of treatment in ADAPT. METHODS: ADAPT was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial of naproxen or celecoxib vs placebo (1:1:1.5 assignment ratio) at six U.S.-based clinics. The trial enrolled 2528 people between 2001 and 2004. Treatments were discontinued in December 2004 and participants were monitored regularly until 2007. In 2010 and 2011, ADAPT-FS screened 1537 participants by telephone and, if indicated, examined them in person using standardized clinical assessments. The primary outcome was time to diagnosis of AD. Death index searches were performed for participants not located. RESULTS: Eighty-nine additional AD events were identified (24 celecoxib, 25 naproxen, and 40 placebo) yielding a total of 161 events (48 [6.6% of randomized participants] celecoxib, 43 [6.0%] naproxen, and 70 [6.5%] placebo) across ADAPT and ADAPT-FS. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing each treatment with placebo showed no overall reduction in risk of AD: HR celecoxib vs placebo, 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.50; P = .86); HR naproxen vs placebo, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.35; P = .66). There were 349 deaths (110 [15.2%] celecoxib, 96 [13.4%] naproxen, and 143 [13.2%] placebo). Risk of death was similar for the naproxen- and placebo-assigned groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28; P = .93) and slightly higher for celecoxib compared with the placebo-assigned group (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90-1.48; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: These results acquired during a follow-up of approximately 7 years (which included a median of less than 1.5 years of treatment) do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent AD in adults with a family history of dementia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial Follow-up Study (ADAPT-FS) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of naproxen and celecoxib for the primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD) several years after cessation of treatment in ADAPT. METHODS: ADAPT was a randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical trial of naproxen or celecoxib vs placebo (1:1:1.5 assignment ratio) at six U.S.-based clinics. The trial enrolled 2528 people between 2001 and 2004. Treatments were discontinued in December 2004 and participants were monitored regularly until 2007. In 2010 and 2011, ADAPT-FS screened 1537 participants by telephone and, if indicated, examined them in person using standardized clinical assessments. The primary outcome was time to diagnosis of AD. Death index searches were performed for participants not located. RESULTS: Eighty-nine additional AD events were identified (24 celecoxib, 25 naproxen, and 40 placebo) yielding a total of 161 events (48 [6.6% of randomized participants] celecoxib, 43 [6.0%] naproxen, and 70 [6.5%] placebo) across ADAPT and ADAPT-FS. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing each treatment with placebo showed no overall reduction in risk of AD: HR celecoxib vs placebo, 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.50; P = .86); HR naproxen vs placebo, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.62-1.35; P = .66). There were 349 deaths (110 [15.2%] celecoxib, 96 [13.4%] naproxen, and 143 [13.2%] placebo). Risk of death was similar for the naproxen- and placebo-assigned groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28; P = .93) and slightly higher for celecoxib compared with the placebo-assigned group (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.90-1.48; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS: These results acquired during a follow-up of approximately 7 years (which included a median of less than 1.5 years of treatment) do not support the hypothesis that celecoxib or naproxen prevent AD in adults with a family history of dementia.
Authors: Barbara K Martin; Christine Szekely; Jason Brandt; Steven Piantadosi; John C S Breitner; Suzanne Craft; Denis Evans; Robert Green; Michael Mullan Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-05-12
Authors: H Akiyama; S Barger; S Barnum; B Bradt; J Bauer; G M Cole; N R Cooper; P Eikelenboom; M Emmerling; B L Fiebich; C E Finch; S Frautschy; W S Griffin; H Hampel; M Hull; G Landreth; L Lue; R Mrak; I R Mackenzie; P L McGeer; M K O'Banion; J Pachter; G Pasinetti; C Plata-Salaman; J Rogers; R Rydel; Y Shen; W Streit; R Strohmeyer; I Tooyoma; F L Van Muiswinkel; R Veerhuis; D Walker; S Webster; B Wegrzyniak; G Wenk; T Wyss-Coray Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Robert C Green; Lon S Schneider; David A Amato; Andrew P Beelen; Gordon Wilcock; Edward A Swabb; Kenton H Zavitz Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Rogers; L C Kirby; S R Hempelman; D L Berry; P L McGeer; A W Kaszniak; J Zalinski; M Cofield; L Mansukhani; P Willson Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: C G Lyketsos; J C S Breitner; R C Green; B K Martin; C Meinert; S Piantadosi; M Sabbagh Journal: Neurology Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Lea T Drye; Anne S Casper; Alice L Sternberg; Janet T Holbrook; Gabrielle Jenkins; Curtis L Meinert Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Jonathan Vogelgsang; Philipp Heßmann; Claus Wolff-Menzler; Stephan Gyßer; Gerhard A Müller; Jens Wiltfang Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Margarete A Wichmann; Karen J Cruickshanks; Cynthia M Carlsson; Rick Chappell; Mary E Fischer; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Carla R Schubert Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2016 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703