Search

IntroductionAmid recent approvals, early Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains an active area of treatment development.MethodsWe performed a conjoint experiment to compare preferences among 26 patients with mild cognitive impairment for four trial features including designs incorporating active aducanumab-control (vs. placebo), returning tau positron emission tomography (PET) results (vs. no disclosure), remote study partner participation (vs. in person), and increased risk of brain swelling (vs. lower risk). We used a generalized estimating equation to model the utility of factor levels.ResultsReturning tau PET results had the highest utility (est: 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13, 0.81; P = 0.007); remote study partner participation showed a similar trend (est: 0.29; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.63; P = 0.097). Trials with active-controlled design (est: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.33, 0.35; P = 0.956) did not demonstrate utility and higher risk of brain swelling had negative utility (est: -0.64; 95% CI: -0.99, -0.30; P

IntroductionTrialists need a thorough understanding of whether reactions to Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker information differ among racial and ethnic groups in preclinical AD trials.MethodsWe used data from the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's Disease Study to analyze cognitively unimpaired participants' responses on the Impact of Event Scale (IES) 24 to 72 hours after amyloid disclosure. We fit a linear regression model to test whether mean IES scores differed among participants from specific racial and ethnic groups. We considered potential effect modification by amyloid status.ResultsReactions to disclosure did not significantly differ among participant groups based on self-reported race and ethnicity. Although the results were not significant when stratified by amyloid status, all racial and ethnic groups except for participants self-reporting Hispanic/Latino ethnicity were observed to have higher mean IES in the elevated amyloid group.DiscussionThese results support continued use of current disclosure methods in preclinical AD trials.

BackgroundMany cognitively unimpaired older adults are interested in learning their Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker status, but little is known about motivations to undergo biomarker testing and result disclosure in the setting of preclinical AD trials.ObjectivesExamine whether motivations to undergo AD biomarker testing and disclosure differ for individuals who have elevated amyloid compared to those with not elevated amyloid, and whether disclosure of amyloid results impacts participants' motivations.Design, setting, participantsWe conducted post-hoc analyses using data from the EARLY study, a preclinical AD trial of the beta-secretase inhibitor atabecestat. As part of the screening process of the trial, participants underwent biomarker testing and disclosure. We analyzed data from n=2241 participants.MeasurementsWe analyzed data from the Views and Perceptions of Amyloid Imaging (VPAI), a 9-item questionnaire assessing how strongly participants agreed with motivating factors for undergoing amyloid testing. The VPAI was administered at the first screening visit and again after amyloid disclosure.ResultsPrior to amyloid disclosure, a greater proportion of participants in the elevated amyloid group responded at the two highest levels of endorsement for the items, "to confirm the feeling that I might already be developing symptoms of AD dementia" (p

BackgroundParticipant retention is a key factor that affects clinical trial integrity. Trial protocols estimate attrition as a function of sample size calculations. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an area of active treatment development. We aimed to quantify the association between trial duration and completion rates and provide guidance for estimating attrition in AD trial protocols.MethodsUsing the Alzforum and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, we analyzed retention data from 125 mild-to-moderate AD and 12 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) clinical trials. We compared the rates of completion between trial arms (active vs. control) and ran regression models to test the hypothesis that trials with longer study duration have lower trial completion using all available data and restricting to placebo data. Our primary outcome was the odds of trial completion for a 6-month increase in trial duration. From the regression model, we estimated the proportion of participants completing 6-, 12-, and 18-month trials.ResultsWe found that 21 (17%) mild-to-moderate AD trials and 1 (8%) MCI trial demonstrated greater dropout in treatment compared to placebo arms. For every 6-month increase in trial duration, there was a 27% decrease in the odds of trial completion (OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.66, 0.81; p

BackgroundTimely accrual of a representative sample is a key factor in whether Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials successfully answer the scientific questions under study. Studies in other fields have observed that, over time, recruitment to trials has become increasingly reliant on larger numbers of sites, with declines in the average per-site recruitment rate. Here, we examined the trends in recruitment over a 20-year period of NIH-funded AD clinical trials conducted by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), a temporally consistent network of sites devoted to interventional research.MethodsWe performed retrospective analyses of eleven ADCS randomized clinical trials. To examine the recruitment planning, we calculated the expected number of participants to be enrolled per site for each trial. To examine the actual trial recruitment rates, we quantified the number of participants enrolled per site per month.ResultsNo effects of time were observed on recruitment planning or overall recruitment rates across trials. No trial achieved an overall recruitment rate greater than one subject per site per month. We observed the fastest recruitment rates in trials with no competition and the slowest in trials that overlapped in time. The highest recruitment rates were consistently seen early within trials and declined over the course of studies.ConclusionsTrial recruitment projections should plan for fewer than one participant randomized per site per month and consider the number of other AD trials being conducted concurrently.

BackgroundBest approaches for retaining research participants in Alzheimer's disease cohort studies are understudied.ObjectiveUsing data from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set, we evaluated the associations of unique strategies with participant retention across Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers and explored potential effect modification by race, ethnicity and diagnostic group.MethodsWe examined retention at the first follow-up visit among participants enrolled during 2015-2017. Structured surveys ascertained 95 retention tactics among 12 strategies. Strategy-specific summary scores were created based on the number of implemented tactics for each strategy and grouped into tertiles. Generalized estimating equations were constructed to evaluate associations between strategy scores and the odds of retention, controlling for age, sex, education, study partner type, marital status, visit length, battery length, diagnostic group, race and ethnicity. Separate models were stratified by race, ethnicity and diagnostic group. Effect modification was formally tested with interaction terms.ResultsAmong 5,715 total participants enrolled, 4,515 were Non-Hispanic White (79%), 335 were Hispanic/Latino (6%), 651 were Non-Hispanic Black (11%), and 214 were Non-Hispanic Asian (4%). Compared to the lowest tertile of scores, the highest tertile of scores involving improvement in study personnel and communication of study requirements and details were associated with 61% higher odds of retention in fully adjusted models (adjusted Odds Ratios [aOR] = 1.61, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.05-2.47 and aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.03-2.35, respectively). We did not find evidence for effect modification.ConclusionIn the setting of limited resources, specific retention strategies may be more valuable than others.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.