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.

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.