Joshua D Grill1,2,3, Michelle M Nuño1,4, Daniel L Gillen1,4. 1. Institute for Memory Impairments and Neurological Disorders. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior. 3. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior. 4. Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA.
Abstract
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: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.
Authors: Joshua D Grill; Lijie Di; Po H Lu; Cathy Lee; John Ringman; Liana G Apostolova; Nicole Chow; Omid Kohannim; Jeffrey L Cummings; Paul M Thompson; David Elashoff Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Keith N Fargo; Maria C Carrillo; Michael W Weiner; William Z Potter; Zaven Khachaturian Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: John C Morris; Suzanne E Schindler; Lena M McCue; Krista L Moulder; Tammie L S Benzinger; Carlos Cruchaga; Anne M Fagan; Elizabeth Grant; Brian A Gordon; David M Holtzman; Chengjie Xiong Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Niklas Mattsson; Philip S Insel; Michael Donohue; Susan Landau; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Michael W Weiner Journal: Brain Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Susan M Landau; Mark A Mintun; Abhinay D Joshi; Robert A Koeppe; Ronald C Petersen; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; William J Jagust Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Susanne Ostrowitzki; Robert A Lasser; Ernest Dorflinger; Philip Scheltens; Frederik Barkhof; Tania Nikolcheva; Elizabeth Ashford; Sylvie Retout; Carsten Hofmann; Paul Delmar; Gregory Klein; Mirjana Andjelkovic; Bruno Dubois; Mercè Boada; Kaj Blennow; Luca Santarelli; Paulo Fontoura Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Jennifer C Howell; Kelly D Watts; Monica W Parker; Junjie Wu; Alexander Kollhoff; Thomas S Wingo; Cornelya D Dorbin; Deqiang Qiu; William T Hu Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Edward R Marcantonio; Jasneet Aneja; Richard N Jones; David C Alsop; Tamara G Fong; Gregory J Crosby; Deborah J Culley; L Adrienne Cupples; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Dallas P Veitch; Michael W Weiner; Paul S Aisen; Laurel A Beckett; Charles DeCarli; Robert C Green; Danielle Harvey; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Susan M Landau; John C Morris; Ozioma Okonkwo; Richard J Perrin; Ronald C Petersen; Monica Rivera-Mindt; Andrew J Saykin; Leslie M Shaw; Arthur W Toga; Duygu Tosun; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Wagner S Brum; Marco Antônio de Bastiani; Andrei Bieger; Joseph Therriault; João P Ferrari-Souza; Andréa L Benedet; Paramita Saha-Chaudhuri; Diogo O Souza; Nicholas J Ashton; Henrik Zetterberg; Tharick A Pascoal; Thomas Karikari; Kaj Blennow; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Eduardo R Zimmer Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2022-03-13
Authors: Andrew J Holbrook; Nicholas J Tustison; Freddie Marquez; Jared Roberts; Michael A Yassa; Daniel L Gillen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-08-25