A clinical trial investigating the effects of fortasyn connect (souvenaid) in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease: results of the LipiDiDiet study

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 ◽  
pp. S23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilkka Soininen ◽  
Pieter Visser ◽  
Miia Kivipelto ◽  
Tobias Hartmann
Author(s):  
F. McDougall ◽  
C. Edgar ◽  
M. Mertes ◽  
P. Delmar ◽  
P. Fontoura ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) has been proposed as a primary outcome for use in prodromal AD trials. However, the psychometric properties of this, and of other commonly used measures, have not been well-established in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: To describe the psychometric properties of commonly used efficacy measures in a clinical trial of prodromal AD. SETTING: Data were gathered as part of a two-year clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients had biomarker confirmed prodromal AD. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognition Subscale 11 and 13 (ADAS-Cog), Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE), and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT-IR [words]). Assessments were conducted at least every 24 weeks. RESULTS: For the CDR-SB, test-retest reliability was good (intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.83); internal consistency was 0.65 at baseline but above 0.8 at later assessments. Relationships between the CDR-SB and other measures were as expected (higher correlations with more closely related constructs), and the CDR-SB differentiated between patients with different severities of dementia (-2.9 points difference between CDR-Global Score 0.5 and 1, P<.0001). Floor and ceiling effects on the CDR-SB total score were minimal; however, at baseline there were ceiling effects in the personal care domain. Further detail is provided on the psychometric properties of ADAS-Cog, MMSE, FCSRT-IR and FAQ in this population. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the CDR-SB are adequate in prodromal AD and continued use is warranted in clinical trials. However, there remains scope for improvement in the assessment of functional constructs and development of novel measures should continue.


2016 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 128-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan J. Teipel ◽  
Enrica Cavedo ◽  
Michel J. Grothe ◽  
Simone Lista ◽  
Samantha Galluzzi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (S10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Hartmann ◽  
Alina Solomon ◽  
Pieter Jelle Visser ◽  
Suzanne B Hendrix ◽  
Kaj Blennow ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hilkka Soininen ◽  
Alina Solomon ◽  
Pieter Jelle Visser ◽  
Suzanne B Hendrix ◽  
Kaj Blennow ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (7S_Part_12) ◽  
pp. P677-P677
Author(s):  
Michael J. Castle ◽  
Fernando Calvo Baltanas ◽  
Imre Kovacs ◽  
Alan H. Nagahara ◽  
Krystof S. Bankiewicz ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110344
Author(s):  
Michelle M Nuño ◽  
Joshua D Grill ◽  
Daniel L Gillen ◽  

Background/Aims: The focus of Alzheimer’s disease studies has shifted to earlier disease stages, including mild cognitive impairment. Biomarker inclusion criteria are often incorporated into mild cognitive impairment clinical trials to identify individuals with “prodromal Alzheimer’s disease” to ensure appropriate drug targets and enrich for participants likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease dementia. The use of these eligibility criteria may affect study power. Methods: We investigated outcome variability and study power in the setting of proof-of-concept prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials that incorporate cerebrospinal fluid levels of total tau (t-tau) and phosphorylated (p-tau) as primary outcomes and how differing biomarker inclusion criteria affect power. We used data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative to model trial scenarios and to estimate the variance and within-subject correlation of total and phosphorylated tau. These estimates were then used to investigate the differences in study power for trials considering these two surrogate outcomes. Results: Patient characteristics were similar for all eligibility criteria. The lowest outcome variance and highest within-subject correlation were obtained when phosphorylated tau was used as an eligibility criterion, compared to amyloid beta or total tau, regardless of whether total tau or phosphorylated tau were used as primary outcomes. Power increased when eligibility criteria were broadened to allow for enrollment of subjects with either low amyloid beta or high phosphorylated tau. Conclusion: Specific biomarker inclusion criteria may impact statistical power in trials using total tau or phosphorylated tau as the primary outcome. In concert with other important considerations such as treatment target and population of clinical interest, these results may have implications to the integrity and efficiency of prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trial designs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document