Loretto Lacey1, Joel Bobula2, Katja Rüdell3, Jose Alvir3, Chris Leibman1. 1. Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC, San Francisco, CA, USA. 2. Pfizer, Inc., Collegville, PA, USA. Electronic address: joel.bobula@pfizer.com. 3. Pfizer, Inc., Collegville, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance (in terms of responsiveness to change, associations with other criterion standards, and indicators of Alzheimer's disease [AD] severity) of a quality-of-life measure (Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease [QOL-AD]) and a health utility measure (Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI-3]) from two recently completed clinical trials of a new drug for AD. METHODS: Change from baseline scores was calculated, and treatment effects were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures. Three separate models were then estimated to examine the association between the quality-of-life/utility end points and the clinical and other health outcome end points measured during the trials, including cognition, function, behavior, and dependence. RESULTS: The performance of the two measures differed. Subject-assessed QOL-AD was found to be weakly associated with clinical measures of cognition, and with caregiver reports of function, behavior, and dependence, and showed little movement over time and did not appear to differ by baseline AD severity. Proxy-assessed QOL-AD scores were consistently lower than subject-assessed scores, and the level of decline in QOL-AD was greater using proxy-assessed QOL-AD. Proxy-assessed HUI-3 scores were more strongly associated with clinical measures of cognition, function, behavior, and dependence than the subject- and proxy-assessed QOL-AD scores. Larger proportionate changes over 78 weeks were observed with HUI-3 scores and greater separation in HUI-3 scores by baseline severity. CONCLUSIONS: Subject-assessed QOL-AD is less likely than proxy-assessed QOL-AD to respond to changes in clinical measures used to track progression in clinical trials of subjects with mild to moderate AD. Proxy-assessed HUI-3 assessments were more in line with other outcome assessments and could therefore be better outcome measures to evaluate clinical progression in mild to moderate AD.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance (in terms of responsiveness to change, associations with other criterion standards, and indicators of Alzheimer's disease [AD] severity) of a quality-of-life measure (Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease [QOL-AD]) and a health utility measure (Health Utilities Index Mark 3 [HUI-3]) from two recently completed clinical trials of a new drug for AD. METHODS: Change from baseline scores was calculated, and treatment effects were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures. Three separate models were then estimated to examine the association between the quality-of-life/utility end points and the clinical and other health outcome end points measured during the trials, including cognition, function, behavior, and dependence. RESULTS: The performance of the two measures differed. Subject-assessed QOL-AD was found to be weakly associated with clinical measures of cognition, and with caregiver reports of function, behavior, and dependence, and showed little movement over time and did not appear to differ by baseline AD severity. Proxy-assessed QOL-AD scores were consistently lower than subject-assessed scores, and the level of decline in QOL-AD was greater using proxy-assessed QOL-AD. Proxy-assessed HUI-3 scores were more strongly associated with clinical measures of cognition, function, behavior, and dependence than the subject- and proxy-assessed QOL-AD scores. Larger proportionate changes over 78 weeks were observed with HUI-3 scores and greater separation in HUI-3 scores by baseline severity. CONCLUSIONS: Subject-assessed QOL-AD is less likely than proxy-assessed QOL-AD to respond to changes in clinical measures used to track progression in clinical trials of subjects with mild to moderate AD. Proxy-assessed HUI-3 assessments were more in line with other outcome assessments and could therefore be better outcome measures to evaluate clinical progression in mild to moderate AD.
Authors: Daniel Vasquez; Melissa Sierra Castrillón; Manuela Gomez Vega; Clara Gomez Henck; David Aguillon; Elkin Garcia-Cifuentes; Alberto Jaramillo-Jimenez; Juan Esteban Velez; Lucia Madrigal; Francisco Lopera Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Kristin Kahle-Wrobleski; Wenyu Ye; David Henley; Ann Marie Hake; Eric Siemers; Yun-Fei Chen; Hong Liu-Seifert Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2016-12-13