Suzanne Hendrix

Report of the task force on designing clinical trials in early (predementia) AD

Background: A large number of promising candidate disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer disease (AD) continue to advance into phase II and phase III testing. However, most completed trials have failed to demonstrate efficacy, and there is growing concern that methodologic difficulties may contribute to these clinical trial failures. The optimal time to intervene with such treatments is probably in the years prior to the onset of dementia, before the neuropathology has progressed to the advanced stage corresponding to clinical dementia. Method: An international task force of individuals from academia, industry, nonprofit foundations, and regulatory agencies was convened to discuss optimal trial design in early (predementia) AD. Results: General consensus was reached on key principles involving the scope of the AD diagnosis, the selection of subjects for trials, outcome measures, and analytical methods. Conclusion: A consensus has been achieved in support of the testing of candidate treatments in the early (predementia) AD population.

Designing drug trials for Alzheimer’s disease: What we have learned from the release of the phase III antibody trials: A report from the EU/US/CTAD Task Force

An international task force of investigators from academia, industry, nonprofit foundations, and regulatory agencies met in Monte Carlo, Monaco, on October 31, 2012, to review lessons learned from the recent bapineuzumab and solanezumab trials, and to incorporate insights gained from these trials into future clinical studies. Although there is broad consensus that Alzheimers disease (AD) should be treated during its earliest stages, the concept of secondary prevention has evolved to be described more accurately as treatment of preclinical, presymptomatic, or early AD. There continues to be a strong emphasis on biomarkers and a need for new biomarkers; however, there has also been a realization, based on completed trials, that the most reliable indicator of clinical efficacy across the entire spectrum of disease from asymptomatic to AD dementia is likely a measure of cognition. The task force made many recommendations that should improve the likelihood of success in future trials, including larger phase 2 or combined phase 2/phase 3 studies, clear evidence of target engagement in the central nervous system, evidence of downstream effects on biomarkers before initiating phase 3 studies, consideration of adaptive and targeted trial designs, and use of sensitive measures of cognition as the most robust indicator of treatment benefit.

An empirically derived composite cognitive test score with improved power to track and evaluate treatments for preclinical Alzheimer's disease

There is growing interest in the evaluation of preclinical Alzheimers disease (AD) treatments. As a result, there is a need to identify a cognitive composite that is sensitive to track preclinical AD decline to be used as a primary endpoint in treatment trials.

The Alzheimer's prevention initiative composite cognitive test score: sample size estimates for the evaluation of preclinical Alzheimer's disease treatments in presenilin 1 E280A mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE To identify a cognitive composite that is sensitive to tracking preclinical Alzheimers disease decline to be used as a primary end point in treatment trials. METHOD We capitalized on longitudinal data collected from 1995 to 2010 from cognitively unimpaired presenilin 1 (PSEN1) E280A mutation carriers from the worlds largest known early-onset autosomal dominant Alzheimers disease kindred to identify a composite cognitive test with the greatest statistical power to track preclinical Alzheimers disease decline and estimate the number of carriers age 30 years and older needed to detect a treatment effect in the Alzheimers Prevention Initiatives (API) preclinical Alzheimers disease treatment trial. The mean-to-standard-deviation ratios (MSDRs) of change over time were calculated in a search for the optimal combination of 1 to 7 cognitive tests/subtests drawn from the neuropsychological test battery in cognitively unimpaired mutation carriers during a 2- and 5-year follow-up period (n = 78 and 57), using data from noncarriers (n = 31 and 56) during the same time period to correct for aging and practice effects. Combinations that performed well were then evaluated for robustness across follow-up years, occurrence of selected items within top-performing combinations, and representation of relevant cognitive domains. RESULTS The optimal test combination included Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimers Disease (CERAD) Word List Recall, CERAD Boston Naming Test (high frequency items), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) Orientation to Time, CERAD Constructional Praxis, and Ravens Progressive Matrices (Set A), with an MSDR of 1.62. This composite is more sensitive than using either the CERAD Word List Recall (MSDR = 0.38) or the entire CERAD-Col battery (MSDR = 0.76). A sample size of 75 cognitively normal PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers aged 30 years and older per treatment arm allows for a detectable treatment effect of 29% in a 60-month trial (80% power, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS We have identified a composite cognitive test score representing multiple cognitive domains that, compared to the most sensitive single test item, has improved power to track preclinical Alzheimers disease decline in autosomal dominant Alzheimers disease mutation carriers and to evaluate preclinical Alzheimers disease treatments. This API composite cognitive test score will be used as the primary end point in the first API trial in cognitively unimpaired autosomal dominant Alzheimers disease carriers within 15 years of their estimated age at clinical onset. We have independently confirmed our findings in a separate cohort of cognitively healthy older adults who progressed to the clinical stages of late-onset Alzheimers disease, described in a separate report, and continue to refine the composite in independent cohorts and compared with other analytic approaches.

Prevention trials in Alzheimer's disease: an EU-US task force report

Despite enormous financial and scientific efforts, still no approved disease-modifying therapies exist for Alzheimers disease (AD). During the last decade all Phase III clinical trials on disease modifiers in AD have failed. The dementia stage of AD being probably too late in order to allow for successful disease modification has been identified as a possible culprit that could explain the failure of so many clinical trials. In parallel, a major development in the diagnostic research field of AD was achieved by the recent proposal of new diagnostic criteria for AD, which also specifically incorporate the use of biomarkers as defining criteria for preclinical stages of AD, thus extending the traditional definition of disease to very early stages that may be a more feasible target for various disease modifying therapeutic interventions. This ongoing paradigm shift in AD definition and diagnosis represents a fundamental basis for redefinition of interventional trials in AD, allowing to specifically focus on preventative measures during very early pathophysiologically confirmed stages of disease. This consensus paper reflects the outcome from a European Union and North American Task Force meeting comprised of experts from academia, industry, private foundations, and regulatory agencies that was convened in Toulouse, France on November 5, 2010 and that focused on prevention trials in AD. This position paper thoroughly analyzes prerequisites for successful preventative trials in AD and concludes with concrete recommendations on biomarkers, statistical tools and other variables important for improved study designs suitable for preventative as well as for early therapeutic interventional trials in AD.

Cumulative, additive benefits of memantine-donepezil combination over component monotherapies in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s dementia: a pooled area under the curve analysis

IntroductionTreatment in moderate or severe Alzheimer’s disease (AD) often involves adding memantine to a cholinesterase-inhibitor (ChEI: donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine). Evidence from six-month randomized trials and long-term observational studies supports superiority of memantine-ChEI combination to ChEI monotherapy. We utilized area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis to assess six-month cumulative treatment efficacy of memantine-donepezil combination versus component monotherapies on individual clinical domains and on a composite index.MethodsData were pooled from 1,408 individuals with moderate to severe AD from four six-month randomized trials of memantine monotherapy (n = 570) or add-on therapy (donepezil-only subset: n = 847). AUC changes from baseline on measures of cognition (SIB), function (ADCS-ADL19), behavior (NPI), global status (CIBIC-Plus), and a composite index (4D-CI: equally weighted composite of four domain measures) were calculated using the trapezoidal rule and evaluated via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (2-sided-α = 0.05). AUC results were contrasted with visit-by-visit changes from baseline (“snapshot analysis”), performed using a mixed-effects model with repeated measures (MMRM).ResultsOver the entire six-month period, placebo-only treatment was associated with significant cumulative worsening on all outcomes. Memantine-donepezil combination showed significantly greater AUC improvements (point x week) on the SIB, NPI, and CIBIC-Plus than placebo-donepezil (SIB: 68.4 versus 32.0, P = 0.019; NPI: −74.3 versus −28.2, P = 0.003; CIBIC-Plus: −2.5 versus 1.4, P = 0.006) and memantine-only monotherapies (SIB: 68.4 versus 12.0, P <0.001; NPI: −74.3 versus −7.4, P <0.001; CIBIC-Plus: −2.5 versus 2.7, P <0.001), whereas these comparisons were not significant for the ADCS-ADL19 (memantine-donepezil (1.4) versus placebo-donepezil (−0.9), P = 0.407; versus memantine-only (−12.2), P = 0.310). Composite index analysis demonstrated significant cumulative advantages of memantine-donepezil combination (630.0) over placebo-donepezil (344.7, P <0.001) and memantine-only (152.1, P <0.001) treatments. Combining memantine and donepezil had an additive effect. Compared with AUC analysis, baseline-to-endpoint change-score analysis underestimated effects of combination therapy, monotherapies, or both.ConclusionsThis large pooled area-under-the-curve analysis of randomized-trial data in moderate to severe AD provides ecologically valid support that adding memantine to stable donepezil results in overall clinical benefits that are additive compared with individual monotherapies, continue to accumulate through six-month treatment, and are at least 50% greater than those of monotherapies.

24-month intervention with a specific multinutrient in people with prodromal Alzheimer's disease (LipiDiDiet): a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Summary Background Nutrition is an important modifiable risk factor in Alzheimers disease. Previous trials of the multinutrient Fortasyn Connect showed benefits in mild Alzheimers disease dementia. LipiDiDiet investigated the effects of Fortasyn Connect on cognition and related measures in prodromal Alzheimers disease. Here, we report the 24-month results of the trial. Methods LipiDiDiet was a 24-month randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre trial (11 sites in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden), with optional 12-month double-blind extensions. The trial enrolled individuals with prodromal Alzheimers disease, defined according to the International Working Group (IWG)-1 criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to active product (125 mL once-a-day drink containing Fortasyn Connect) or control product. Randomisation was computer-generated centrally in blocks of four, stratified by site. All study personnel and participants were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in a neuropsychological test battery (NTB) score. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. Safety analyses included all participants who consumed at least one study product dose. This trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register, number NTR1705. Findings Between April 20, 2009, and July 3, 2013, 311 of 382 participants screened were randomly assigned to the active group (n=153) or control group (n=158). Mean change in NTB primary endpoint was −0·028 (SD 0·453) in the active group and −0·108 (0·528) in the control group; estimated mean treatment difference was 0·098 (95% CI −0·041 to 0·237; p=0·166). The decline in the control group was less than the prestudy estimate of −0·4 during 24 months. 66 (21%) participants dropped out of the study. Serious adverse events occurred in 34 (22%) participants in the active group and 30 (19%) in control group (p=0·487), none of which were regarded as related to the study intervention. Interpretation The intervention had no significant effect on the NTB primary endpoint over 2 years in prodromal Alzheimers disease. However, cognitive decline in this population was much lower than expected, rendering the primary endpoint inadequately powered. Group differences on secondary endpoints of disease progression measuring cognition and function and hippocampal atrophy were observed. Further study of nutritional approaches with larger sample sizes, longer duration, or a primary endpoint more sensitive in this pre-dementia population, is needed. Funding European Commission 7th Framework Programme.

Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time

Recent biomarker research has improved the identification of individuals with very early stages of Alzheimers disease (AD) and has demonstrated that biomarkers are sensitive for measuring progression in the pre-dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage and even pre-symptomatic or pre-MCI stage of AD. Because there are no validated biomarkers in AD, it is important to seek out clinical outcomes that are also sensitive for measuring progression in these very early stages of disease. Clinical outcomes are more subjective and more affected by measurement error than biomarkers but represent the core aspects of the disease and are critical for validation of biomarkers and for evaluation of clinical relevance. Identification of individuals with pre-MCI stages of AD will need to continue to rely on biomarkers, but the identification of individuals with MCI who will progress to AD can be achieved with biomarkers or clinical criteria. Although standard clinical outcomes have been shown to be less sensitive to progression than biomarker outcomes in MCI and pre-MCI populations, non-standard scoring has improved the performance of the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale, making it more sensitive to progression. Neuropsychological cognitive testing items are optimal for measuring progression in pre-MCI populations, and current research is exploring the best ways to combine these items into a composite cognitive score with maximum responsiveness. In an MCI stage, cognitive, functional, and global items all change, and the best single composite score for measuring progression may involve all of these aspects of the disease. The best chance of success in demonstrating treatment effects in clinical trials will be achieved in a well-defined pre-MCI or MCI population and with an outcome that tracks well with clinical progression over time and with time. A partial least squares model can be used to identify these optimal weighted combinations.

Requiring an amyloid-β1-42 biomarker may improve the efficiency of a study, and simulations may help in planning studies

A recent article by Schneider and colleagues has generated a lot of interest in simulation studies as a way to improve study design. The study also illustrates the foremost principal in simulation studies, which is that the results of a simulation are an embodiment of the assumptions that went into it. This simulation study assumes that the effect size is proportional to the mean to standard deviation ratio of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale in the population being studied. Under this assumption, selecting a subgroup for a clinical trial based on biomarkers will not affect the efficiency of the study, despite achieving the desired increase in the mean to standard deviation ratio.

Separation of cognitive domains to improve prediction of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease

Addressing causes of heterogeneity in cognitive outcomes is becoming more critical as Alzheimers disease (AD) research focuses on earlier disease. One of the causes of this heterogeneity may be that individuals with deficiencies in different cognitive domains may perform similarly on a neuropsychological (NP) test for very different reasons. Tatsuoka and colleagues have applied a Bayesian model in order to integrate knowledge about cognitive domains relevant to each NP test with the observed outcomes from the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) mild cognitive impairment data. This approach resulted in better prediction of AD diagnosis than more traditional approaches.