Gregory S Day1, Nikolaos Scarmeas1, Richard Dubinsky1, Katherine Coerver1, Anitra Mostacero1, Brooks West1, Scott R Wessels1, Melissa J Armstrong1. 1. From the Department of Neurology (G.S.D.), Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL; National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (N.S.), Greece; Columbia University (N.S.), New York, NY; University of Kansas Medical Center (R.D.), Kansas City; Rocky Mountain Neurology (K.C.), Lone Tree, CO; Patient Representative (A.M.), San Antonio, TX; Care Partner Representative (B.W.), Telluride, CO; American Academy of Neurology (S.R.W.), Minneapolis, MN; and Department of Neurology (M.J.A.), University of Florida, Gainesville.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the class of evidence for aducanumab use for the treatment of Alzheimer disease and present clinical considerations regarding use. METHODS: The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. Level of evidence statements were assigned in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology's 2017 therapeutic classification of evidence scheme. Safety information, regulatory decisions, and clinical context were also reviewed. RESULTS: Data were identified from 4 clinical trials, 1 rated Class I and 3 rated Class II. The Class I study showed that single doses of aducanumab up to 30 mg/kg were safe and well tolerated. All 3 Class II studies provided evidence that aducanumab (3-10 mg/kg) decreased amyloid deposition on brain PET at 1 year vs placebo. Efficacy data in the Class II studies varied by dose and outcome, but aducanumab either had no effect on mean change on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores or resulted in less worsening (vs placebo) that was of uncertain clinical importance. Adverse amyloid-related imaging abnormalities occurred in approximately 40% of individuals treated with aducanumab vs 10% receiving placebo. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Administration of aducanumab will require expanded clinical infrastructure. Evidence-based guidance is needed to address key questions (e.g., safety in populations not enrolled in phase 3 studies, expected benefits on daily function, treatment duration) and critical issues relating to access to aducanumab (e.g., coverage, costs, burden of monthly infusions) that will inform shared decision making between patients and providers.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the class of evidence for aducanumab use for the treatment of Alzheimer disease and present clinical considerations regarding use. METHODS: The author panel systematically reviewed available clinical trial data detailing aducanumab use in individuals with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. Level of evidence statements were assigned in accordance with the American Academy of Neurology's 2017 therapeutic classification of evidence scheme. Safety information, regulatory decisions, and clinical context were also reviewed. RESULTS: Data were identified from 4 clinical trials, 1 rated Class I and 3 rated Class II. The Class I study showed that single doses of aducanumab up to 30 mg/kg were safe and well tolerated. All 3 Class II studies provided evidence that aducanumab (3-10 mg/kg) decreased amyloid deposition on brain PET at 1 year vs placebo. Efficacy data in the Class II studies varied by dose and outcome, but aducanumab either had no effect on mean change on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores or resulted in less worsening (vs placebo) that was of uncertain clinical importance. Adverse amyloid-related imaging abnormalities occurred in approximately 40% of individuals treated with aducanumab vs 10% receiving placebo. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Administration of aducanumab will require expanded clinical infrastructure. Evidence-based guidance is needed to address key questions (e.g., safety in populations not enrolled in phase 3 studies, expected benefits on daily function, treatment duration) and critical issues relating to access to aducanumab (e.g., coverage, costs, burden of monthly infusions) that will inform shared decision making between patients and providers.
Authors: Mark A Mintun; Albert C Lo; Cynthia Duggan Evans; Alette M Wessels; Paul A Ardayfio; Scott W Andersen; Sergey Shcherbinin; JonDavid Sparks; John R Sims; Miroslaw Brys; Liana G Apostolova; Stephen P Salloway; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gil D Rabinovici; Constantine Gatsonis; Charles Apgar; Kiran Chaudhary; Ilana Gareen; Lucy Hanna; James Hendrix; Bruce E Hillner; Cynthia Olson; Orit H Lesman-Segev; Justin Romanoff; Barry A Siegel; Rachel A Whitmer; Maria C Carrillo Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ah-Ling Cheng; Saima Batool; Cheryl R McCreary; M L Lauzon; Richard Frayne; Mayank Goyal; Eric E Smith Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nancy L Wilczynski; K Ann McKibbon; Stephen D Walter; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sven Haller; Meike W Vernooij; Joost P A Kuijer; Elna-Marie Larsson; Hans Rolf Jäger; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Jalayne Arias; Kaj Blennow; Douglas Galasko; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Stephen Salloway; Suzanne Schindler; Maria C Carrillo; James A Hendrix; April Ross; Judit Illes; Courtney Ramus; Sheila Fifer Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: J Scott Andrews; Urvi Desai; Noam Y Kirson; Miriam L Zichlin; Daniel E Ball; Brandy R Matthews Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2019-08-02