Search

Dominantly inherited Alzheimer's disease (DIAD) causes predictable biological changes decades before the onset of clinical symptoms, enabling testing of interventions in the asymptomatic and symptomatic stages to delay or slow disease progression. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-arm trial of gantenerumab or solanezumab in participants with DIAD across asymptomatic and symptomatic disease stages. Mutation carriers were assigned 3:1 to either drug or placebo and received treatment for 4-7 years. The primary outcome was a cognitive end point; secondary outcomes included clinical, cognitive, imaging and fluid biomarker measures. Fifty-two participants carrying a mutation were assigned to receive gantenerumab, 52 solanezumab and 40 placebo. Both drugs engaged their Aβ targets but neither demonstrated a beneficial effect on cognitive measures compared to controls. The solanezumab-treated group showed a greater cognitive decline on some measures and did not show benefits on downstream biomarkers. Gantenerumab significantly reduced amyloid plaques, cerebrospinal fluid total tau, and phospho-tau181 and attenuated increases of neurofilament light chain. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities edema was observed in 19.2% (3 out of 11 were mildly symptomatic) of the gantenerumab group, 2.5% of the placebo group and 0% of the solanezumab group. Gantenerumab and solanezumab did not slow cognitive decline in symptomatic DIAD. The asymptomatic groups showed no cognitive decline; symptomatic participants had declined before reaching the target doses.

Background: Computerized cognitive assessments may improve Alzheimer’s disease (AD) secondary prevention trial efficiency and accuracy. However, they require validation against standard outcomes and relevant biomarkers. Objective: To assess the feasibility and validity of the tablet-based Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3). Design: Cross-sectional analysis of cognitive screening data from the A4 study (Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD). Setting: Multi-center international study. Participants: Clinically normal (CN) older adults (65-85; n=4486). Measurements: Participants underwent florbetapir-Positron Emission Tomography for Aβ+/- classification. They completed the C3 and standard paper and pencil measures included in the Preclinical Alzheimer’s Cognitive Composite (PACC). The C3 combines memory measures sensitive to change over time (Cogstate Brief Battery-One Card Learning) and measures shown to be declining early in AD including pattern separation (Behavioral Pattern Separation Test- Object- Lure Discrimination Index) and associative memory (Face Name Associative Memory Exam- Face-Name Matching). C3 acceptability and completion rates were assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. C3 performance was explored in relation to Aβ+/- groups (n=1323/3163) and PACC. Results: C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete. Rates of incomplete or invalid administrations were extremely low, even in the bottom quartile of cognitive performers (PACC). C3 was moderately correlated with PACC (r=0.39). Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen’s d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p

While the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU) was ongoing, external data suggested higher doses were needed to achieve targeted effects; therefore, doses of gantenerumab were increased 5-fold, and solanezumab was increased 4-fold. We evaluated to what extent mid-trial dose increases produced a dose-dependent treatment effect.Using generalized linear mixed effects (LME) models, we estimated the annual low- and high-dose treatment effects in clinical, cognitive, and biomarker outcomes.Both gantenerumab and solanezumab demonstrated dose-dependent treatment effects (significant for gantenerumab, non-significant for solanezumab) in their respective target amyloid biomarkers (Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography standardized uptake value ratio and cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta 42), with gantenerumab demonstrating additional treatment effects in some downstream biomarkers. No dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in clinical or cognitive outcomes.Mid-trial dose escalation can be implemented as a remedy for an insufficient initial dose and can be more cost effective and less burdensome to participants than starting a new trial with higher doses, especially in rare diseases.We evaluated the dose-dependent treatment effect of two different amyloid-specific immunotherapies.Dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in some biomarkers.No dose-dependent treatment effects were observed in clinical/cognitive outcomes, potentially due to the fact that the modified study may not have been powered to detect such treatment effects in symptomatic subjects at a mild stage of disease exposed to high (or maximal) doses of medication for prolonged durations.

Background: Greater subjective cognitive changes on the Cognitive Function Index (CFI) was previously found to be associated with elevated amyloid (Aß) status in participants screening for the A4 Study, reported by study partners and the participants themselves. While the total score on the CFI related to amyloid for both sources respectively, potential differences in the specific types of cognitive changes reported by either participants or their study partners was not investigated. Objectives: To determine the specific types of subjective cognitive changes endorsed by participants and their study partners that are associated with amyloid status in individuals screening for an AD prevention trial. Design, Setting, Participants: Four thousand four hundred and eighty-six cognitively unimpaired (CDR=0; MMSE 25-30) participants (ages 65-85) screening for the A4 Study completed florbetapir (Aß) Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging. Participants were classified as elevated amyloid (Aß+; n=1323) or non-elevated amyloid (Aß-; n=3163). Measurements: Prior to amyloid PET imaging, subjective report of changes in cognitive functioning were measured using the CFI (15 item questionnaire; Yes/Maybe/No response options) and administered separately to both participants and their study partners (i.e., a family member or friend in regular contact with the participant). The impact of demographic factors on CFI report was investigated. For each item of the CFI, the relationship between Aß and CFI response was investigated using an ordinal mixed effects model for participant and study partner report. Results: Independent of Aß status, participants were more likely to report ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’ compared to the study partners for nearly all CFI items. Older age (r= 0.06, p

Little research has been conducted on the statistical properties of composite measures comprising linear combinations of continuous component scales. We assessed the quantitative relationship between the composites and their individual components regarding their abilities to detect treatment effects. In particular, we developed the mathematical derivation of the treatment effect size of a continuous composite in relation to the treatment effect sizes of its components and proved multiple properties of the composite. We demonstrated that the treatment effect size of a composite is greater than the minimum treatment effect size of its components and that above certain thresholds of correlations of components and ratios of component effect sizes, the composite may outperform its components. Examples from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical studies of solanezumab and donepezil using the composite Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) and its components, the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living inventory, instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) were consistent with the theoretical statistical properties. The understanding of the quantitative relationships between continuous composites and their components will be useful in clinical trial design and the development of new scales and composites across therapeutic areas.

Introduction Effectiveness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments is commonly evaluated with coprimary outcomes; cognition with function to ensure clinical meaningfulness of a cognitive effect. Methods We reviewed the literature for functional outcomes in mild AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (distinct from combined mild-moderate/severe AD) treated with approved AD drugs. Cognitive and functional treatment differences in mild AD patients in solanezumab EXPEDITION/EXPEDITION2 studies were compared across time. Results Seven publications provided MCI/mild AD functional outcomes, one of which reported a significant functional treatment effect. Secondary analyses of EXPEDITION studies suggested a smaller functional effect of solanezumab relative to cognition. An increasing effect of solanezumab over 18 months was shown for cognition and function. Discussion Function as the sole measure to demonstrate clinical meaningfulness of cognitive effects in mild AD may have limitations. For disease-modifying treatments, point differences on cognitive and functional scales should be qualified with duration of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: A delayed-start design has been proposed to assess a potential disease-modifying effect in investigational drugs for Alzheimer’s disease that target the underlying disease process. We extended this methodology to recently obtained data from the EXPEDITION3. METHODS: EXPEDITION3 was a Phase 3, double-blind study with participants randomized to solanezumab (400 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 80 weeks, with an optional extension of active treatment. The delayed-start analysis was designed to determine if a statistically significant treatment difference established during the placebo-controlled period is maintained (at predefined level) during the delayed-start period, which would suggest the active drug has a disease-modifying effect. The delayed-start analysis was assessed across multiple efficacy measures, and includes data from baseline in the placebo-controlled period and up to 9 months in the delayed-start period. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the placebo and solanezumab treatment groups at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 14-item subscale. A significant treatment difference was observed at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living instrumental items, an effect also seen at 6 months in the delayed-start period, and the noninferiority criterion was met. No other efficacy measures met these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed-start statistical methodology was used to understand the longitudinal outcomes in EXPEDITION3 and its extension. The small treatment differences observed at the end of the placebo-controlled phase prevented adequate assessment of any putative disease modifying effect.

Introduction Solanezumab is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody in clinical testing for treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Its mechanism suggests the possibility of slowing the progression of AD. Methods A possible disease-modifying effect of solanezumab was assessed using a new statistical method including noninferiority testing. Performance differences were compared during the placebo-controlled period with performance differences after the placebo patients crossed over to solanezumab in the delayed-start period. Results Noninferiority of the 14-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog 14 ) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living inventory instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) differences was met through 132 weeks, indicating that treatment differences observed in the placebo-controlled period remained, within a predefined margin, after the placebo group initiated solanezumab. Solanezumab was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified. Discussion The results of this secondary analysis show that the mild subgroup of solanezumab-treated patients who initiated treatment early, at the start of the placebo-controlled period, retained an advantage at most time points in the delayed-start period.

It is generally recognized that more sensitive instruments for the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are needed. The integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) combines scores from 2 widely accepted measures, the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study – instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). Disease progression and treatment differences as measured by the iADRS were analyzed using data from solanezumab EXPEDITION, EXPEDITION2, and EXPEDITION-EXT Studies; semagacestat IDENTITY Study; and donepezil ADCS – mild cognitive impairment (ADCS-MCI) Study. Psychometric properties of the iADRS were established through principal component analysis (PCA) and estimation of contributions of subscores and individual item scores to the iADRS total score. The iADRS performed better than most composites and scales in detecting disease progression and comparably or better than individual scales in detecting treatment differences. PCA demonstrated the iADRS can be divided into two principal components primarily representing cognitive items and instrumental ADLs. Dynamic ranges of the subscales were similar across all studies, reflecting approximately equal contributions from both subscales to the iADRS total score. In item analyses, every item contributed to the total score, with varying strength of contributions by item and across data sets. The iADRS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and was effective in capturing disease progression from MCI through moderate AD and treatment effects across the early disease spectrum. These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in studies of mixed populations, ensuring sensitivity to treatment effects as subjects progress during studies of putative disease-modifying agents.

A delayed-start design has been proposed to assess a potential disease-modifying effect in investigational drugs for Alzheimer’s disease that target the underlying disease process. We extended this methodology to recently obtained data from the EXPEDITION3. EXPEDITION3 was a Phase 3, double-blind study with participants randomized to solanezumab (400 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 80 weeks, with an optional extension of active treatment. The delayed-start analysis was designed to determine if a statistically significant treatment difference established during the placebo-controlled period is maintained (at predefined level) during the delayed-start period, which would suggest the active drug has a disease-modifying effect. The delayed-start analysis was assessed across multiple efficacy measures, and includes data from baseline in the placebo-controlled period and up to 9 months in the delayed-start period. No significant difference was observed between the placebo and solanezumab treatment groups at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive 14-item subscale. A significant treatment difference was observed at the end of the placebo-controlled period for the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living instrumental items, an effect also seen at 6 months in the delayed-start period, and the noninferiority criterion was met. No other efficacy measures met these criteria. Delayed-start statistical methodology was used to understand the longitudinal outcomes in EXPEDITION3 and its extension. The small treatment differences observed at the end of the placebo-controlled phase prevented adequate assessment of any putative disease modifying effect.

Purpose: To estimate the rate of new-onset seizure in ADHD patients in relation to ADHD pharmacotherapy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 34,727 patients, ages 6 to 17, with at least two insurance claims bearing ADHD diagnoses during 2003 in the United Healthcare database. Incidence of seizure was calculated for observation time during treatment with atomoxetine and stimulants/bupropion. Results: Seizure incidence among ADHD patients was 4.5/1,000 person-years (p-y; 95% confidence interval 3.7 – 5.5). ADHD patients who received any ADHD medication had an incidence of 3.8/1,000 p-y (3.0 – 4.8) compared to 8.7 (5.8 – 12.4) for patients who did not receive any ADHD medication. The relative risk (RR) for current vs non-use of atomoxetine was 1.1 (0.6 – 2.1). For stimulants and bupropion, the RR for current vs non-use was 0.8 (0.6 – 1.3). Elevated seizure risks were found in association with central nervous system (CNS) disease (OR 3.9, 1.2 – 10.9), CNS medications (OR 2.2, 1.3 – 3.6), metabolic disease (OR 2.9, 1.1 – 6.8), and psychiatric disease risk factors (OR 1.7, 1.1 – 2.6). Conclusions: In this study, there was no statistically significant association between use of atomoxetine or stimulants and seizure risk in children ages 6 to 17 years with ADHD and without prior seizure disorder.

One method for demonstrating disease modification is a delayed-start design, consisting of a placebo-controlled period followed by a delayed-start period wherein all patients receive active treatment. To address methodological issues in previous delayed-start approaches, we propose a new method that is robust across conditions of drug effect, discontinuation rates, and missing data mechanisms. We propose a modeling approach and test procedure to test the hypothesis of noninferiority, comparing the treatment difference at the end of the delayed-start period with that at the end of the placebo-controlled period. We conducted simulations to identify the optimal noninferiority testing procedure to ensure the method was robust across scenarios and assumptions, and to evaluate the appropriate modeling approach for analyzing the delayed-start period. We then applied this methodology to Phase 3 solanezumab clinical trial data for mild Alzheimer’s disease patients. Simulation results showed a testing procedure using a proportional noninferiority margin was robust for detecting disease-modifying effects; conditions of high and moderate discontinuations; and with various missing data mechanisms. Using all data from all randomized patients in a single model over both the placebo-controlled and delayed-start study periods demonstrated good statistical performance. In analysis of solanezumab data using this methodology, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating the treatment difference at the end of the placebo-controlled studies was preserved at the end of the delayed-start period within a pre-defined margin. The proposed noninferiority method for delayed-start analysis controls Type I error rate well and addresses many challenges posed by previous approaches. Delayed-start studies employing the proposed analysis approach could be used to provide evidence of a disease-modifying effect. This method has been communicated with FDA and has been successfully applied to actual clinical trial data accrued from the Phase 3 clinical trials of solanezumab.

Mortality rates across matched cohorts of hospitalized patients treated with IM olanzapine, haloperidol, and/or ziprasidone in a hospital database were compared. Using propensity score matching, matched cohorts of IM olanzapine- (N=2,984) and IM haloperidol-treated patients (N=2,984) and IM olanzapine- (N=2,876) and IM ziprasidone-treated patients (N=2,876) were obtained. The study outcome was in-hospital death within 2 days of administering IM antipsychotic. Incidence of death was not statistically different between olanzapine-ziprasidone cohorts (OR=1.21, 95% CI 0.92-1.59). The olanzapine cohort demonstrated a significantly lower death incidence than the haloperidol cohort (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93; p=.011). The results suggest that patients treated with IM olanzapine do not have a significantly greater risk of death than patients treated with IM haloperidol or IM ziprasidone.