Jing Qian1, Bradley T Hyman2, Rebecca A Betensky3. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 2. Neurology Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: The heterogeneity of rate of clinical progression among patients with Alzheimer disease leads to difficulty in providing clinical counseling and diminishes the power of clinical trials using disease-modifying agents. Objective: To gain a better understanding of the factors that affect the natural history of progression in Alzheimer disease for the purpose of improving both clinical care and clinical trial design. Design, Setting, and Participants: A longitudinal cohort study of aging from 2005 to 2014 in the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center. Clinical evaluation of the participants was conducted in 31 National Institute on Aging's Alzheimer Disease Centers. Nine hundred eighty-four participants in the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center cohort study who died and underwent autopsy and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: We sought to model the possibility that knowledge of neurofibrillary tangle burden in the presence of moderate or frequent plaques would add to the ability to predict clinical rate of progression during the ensuing 2 to 3 years. We examined the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center autopsy data to evaluate the effect of different neurofibrillary tangle stages on the rates of progression on several standard clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal memory test (logical memory), and a controlled oral word association task (vegetable naming), implementing a reverse-time longitudinal modeling approach in conjunction with latent class estimation to adjust for unmeasured sources of heterogeneity. Results: Several correlations between clinical variables and neurocognitive performance suggest a basis for heterogeneity: Higher education level was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (β = -0.19; P < .001), and frequent vs moderate neuritic plaques were associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (β = 1.64; P < .001) and lower logical memory score (β = -1.07; P = .005). The rate of change of the clinical and cognitive scores varied depending on Braak stage, when adjusting for plaques, age of death, sex, education, and APOE genotype. For example, comparing high vs low Braak stage with other variables fixed, the logical memory score decreased a substantial 0.38 additional units per year (95% CI, -0.70 to -0.06; P = .02). Using these data, we estimate that a 300-participant clinical trial with end point of a 20% improvement in slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% power when all participants in the trial are from the high Braak stage, compared with 29% power if Braak stage had not used for eligibility. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that knowledge of neurofibrillary tangle stage, modeled as the sort of information that could be available from tau positron-emission tomography scans and its use to determine eligibility to a trial, could dramatically improve the power of clinical trials and equivalently reduce the required sample sizes of clinical trials.
Importance: The heterogeneity of rate of clinical progression among patients with Alzheimer disease leads to difficulty in providing clinical counseling and diminishes the power of clinical trials using disease-modifying agents. Objective: To gain a better understanding of the factors that affect the natural history of progression in Alzheimer disease for the purpose of improving both clinical care and clinical trial design. Design, Setting, and Participants: A longitudinal cohort study of aging from 2005 to 2014 in the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center. Clinical evaluation of the participants was conducted in 31 National Institute on Aging's Alzheimer Disease Centers. Nine hundred eighty-four participants in the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center cohort study who died and underwent autopsy and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: We sought to model the possibility that knowledge of neurofibrillary tangle burden in the presence of moderate or frequent plaques would add to the ability to predict clinical rate of progression during the ensuing 2 to 3 years. We examined the National Alzheimer Coordinating Center autopsy data to evaluate the effect of different neurofibrillary tangle stages on the rates of progression on several standard clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal memory test (logical memory), and a controlled oral word association task (vegetable naming), implementing a reverse-time longitudinal modeling approach in conjunction with latent class estimation to adjust for unmeasured sources of heterogeneity. Results: Several correlations between clinical variables and neurocognitive performance suggest a basis for heterogeneity: Higher education level was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (β = -0.19; P < .001), and frequent vs moderate neuritic plaques were associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (β = 1.64; P < .001) and lower logical memory score (β = -1.07; P = .005). The rate of change of the clinical and cognitive scores varied depending on Braak stage, when adjusting for plaques, age of death, sex, education, and APOE genotype. For example, comparing high vs low Braak stage with other variables fixed, the logical memory score decreased a substantial 0.38 additional units per year (95% CI, -0.70 to -0.06; P = .02). Using these data, we estimate that a 300-participant clinical trial with end point of a 20% improvement in slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% power when all participants in the trial are from the high Braak stage, compared with 29% power if Braak stage had not used for eligibility. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that knowledge of neurofibrillary tangle stage, modeled as the sort of information that could be available from tau positron-emission tomography scans and its use to determine eligibility to a trial, could dramatically improve the power of clinical trials and equivalently reduce the required sample sizes of clinical trials.
Authors: Lei Yu; Patricia A Boyle; Sue Leurgans; Julie A Schneider; Richard J Kryscio; Robert S Wilson; David A Bennett Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Lei Yu; Patricia Boyle; Robert S Wilson; Eisuke Segawa; Sue Leurgans; Philip L De Jager; David A Bennett Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Adam J Schwarz; Peng Yu; Bradley B Miller; Sergey Shcherbinin; James Dickson; Michael Navitsky; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael D Devous; Mark S Mintun Journal: Brain Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: L S Schneider; F Mangialasche; N Andreasen; H Feldman; E Giacobini; R Jones; V Mantua; P Mecocci; L Pani; B Winblad; M Kivipelto Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; David Salmon; Nathaniel Mercaldo; Steven Ferris; Neill R Graff-Radford; Helena Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles DeCarli; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Elaine Peskind; Woodrow Dietrich; Duane L Beekly; Walter A Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Aaron Schultz; Rebecca A Betensky; J Alex Becker; Jorge Sepulcre; Dorene Rentz; Elizabeth Mormino; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Rebecca Amariglio; Kate Papp; Gad Marshall; Mark Albers; Samantha Mauro; Lesley Pepin; Jonathan Alverio; Kelly Judge; Marlie Philiossaint; Timothy Shoup; Daniel Yokell; Bradford Dickerson; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley Hyman; Neil Vasdev; Reisa Sperling Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Lei Yu; Patricia Boyle; Julie A Schneider; Eisuke Segawa; Robert S Wilson; Sue Leurgans; David A Bennett Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2013-05-06
Authors: Marta Marquié; Michael Siao Tick Chong; Alejandro Antón-Fernández; Eline E Verwer; Nil Sáez-Calveras; Avery C Meltzer; Prianca Ramanan; Ana C Amaral; Jose Gonzalez; Marc D Normandin; Matthew P Frosch; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Lilah M Besser; Walter A Kukull; Merilee A Teylan; Eileen H Bigio; Nigel J Cairns; Julia K Kofler; Thomas J Montine; Julie A Schneider; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Nicolas R Barthélemy; Yan Li; Nelly Joseph-Mathurin; Brian A Gordon; Jason Hassenstab; Tammie L S Benzinger; Virginia Buckles; Anne M Fagan; Richard J Perrin; Alison M Goate; John C Morris; Celeste M Karch; Chengjie Xiong; Ricardo Allegri; Patricio Chrem Mendez; Sarah B Berman; Takeshi Ikeuchi; Hiroshi Mori; Hiroyuki Shimada; Mikio Shoji; Kazushi Suzuki; James Noble; Martin Farlow; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Neill R Graff-Radford; Stephen Salloway; Peter R Schofield; Colin L Masters; Ralph N Martins; Antoinette O'Connor; Nick C Fox; Johannes Levin; Mathias Jucker; Audrey Gabelle; Sylvain Lehmann; Chihiro Sato; Randall J Bateman; Eric McDade Journal: Nat Med Date: 2020-03-11 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Adam J Schwarz; Sergey Shcherbinin; Lawrence J Slieker; Shannon L Risacher; Arnaud Charil; Michael C Irizarry; Adam S Fleisher; Sudeepti Southekal; Abhinay D Joshi; Michael D Devous; Bradley B Miller; Andrew J Saykin Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2018-02-14
Authors: Justin S Sanchez; J Alex Becker; Heidi I L Jacobs; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Shu Jiang; Aaron P Schultz; Michael J Properzi; Samantha R Katz; Alexa Beiser; Claudia L Satizabal; Adrienne O'Donnell; Charles DeCarli; Ron Killiany; Georges El Fakhri; Marc D Normandin; Teresa Gómez-Isla; Yakeel T Quiroz; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling; Sudha Seshadri; Jean Augustinack; Julie C Price; Keith A Johnson Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 17.956