Article

Estimating sample sizes for predementia Alzheimer's trials based on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Mary S. Easton Center for Alzheimer's Disease Research, Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Neurobiology of aging (Impact Factor: 4.85). 04/2012; 34(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2012.03.006
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study modeled predementia Alzheimer's disease clinical trials. Longitudinal data from cognitively normal (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used to calculate sample size requirements for trials using outcome measures, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes, Mini-Mental State Examination, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale with and without delayed recall, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task. We examined the impact on sample sizes of enrichment for genetic and biomarker criteria, including cerebrospinal fluid protein and neuroimaging analyses. We observed little cognitive decline in the CN population at 36 months, regardless of the enrichment strategy. Nonetheless, in CN subjects, using Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task total as an outcome at 36 months required the fewest subjects across enrichment strategies, with apolipoprotein E genotype ε4 carrier status requiring the fewest (n = 499 per arm to demonstrate a 25% reduction in disease progression). In MCI, enrichment reduced the required sample sizes for trials, relative to estimates based on all subjects. For MCI, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes consistently required the smallest sample sizes. We conclude that predementia clinical trial conduct in Alzheimer's disease is enhanced by the use of biomarker inclusion criteria.

0 Followers
 · 
166 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is growing body of research devoted to designing imaging-based biomarkers that identify Alzheimer's disease (AD) in its prodromal stage using statistical machine learning methods. Recently several authors investigated how clinical trials for AD can be made more efficient (i.e., smaller sample size) using predictive measures from such classification methods. In this paper, we explain why predictive measures given by such SVM type objectives may be less than ideal for use in the setting described above. We give a solution based on a novel deep learning model, randomized denoising autoencoders (rDA), which regresses on training labels y while also accounting for the variance, a property which is very useful for clinical trial design. Our results give strong improvements in sample size estimates over strategies based on multi-kernel learning. Also, rDA predictions appear to more accurately correlate to stages of disease. Separately, our formulation empirically shows how deep architectures can be applied in the large d, small n regime--the default situation in medical imaging. This result is of independent interest.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background It is unknown which commonly used Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarker values—baseline or progression—best predict longitudinal cognitive decline. Methods 526 subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). ADNI composite memory and executive scores were the primary outcomes. Individual-specific slope of the longitudinal trajectory of each biomarker was first estimated. These estimates and observed baseline biomarker values were used as predictors of cognitive declines. Variability in cognitive declines explained by baseline biomarker values was compared with variability explained by biomarker progression values. Results About 40% of variability in memory and executive function declines was explained by ventricular volume progression among mild cognitive impairment patients. A total of 84% of memory and 65% of executive function declines were explained by fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) score progression and ventricular volume progression, respectively, among AD patients. Conclusions For most biomarkers, biomarker progressions explained higher variability in cognitive decline than biomarker baseline values. This has important implications for clinical trials targeted to modify AD biomarkers.
    Alzheimer's and Dementia 11/2014; 10(6). DOI:10.1016/j.jalz.2014.04.513 · 17.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Longitudinal assessment of cognitive decline in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and Alzheimer?s disease (AD) often involves the use of both informant-based and objective cognitive assessments. As efforts have focused on identifying individuals in pre-clinical stages, instruments that are sensitive to subtle cognitive changes are needed. The Alzheimer?s Questionnaire (AQ) has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in identifying aMCI and AD; however its ability to measure longitudinal change has not been assessed. The aims of this study are to assess the sensitivity to change of the AQ and to determine whether the AQ predicts change in global cognition and function in cognitively normal (CN), aMCI, and AD subjects. Methods: Data from 202 individuals participating in a brain and body donation program were utilized for this study (101 CN, 62 aMCI, 39?AD). AD and aMCI individuals were matched on age, education, and gender to CN individuals. Sensitivity to change of the AQ was assessed in addition to the AQ?s ability to predict change in global cognition and function. The Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) were used as gold standard comparisons of cognition and function. Sample size calculations for a 25% treatment effect were also carried out for all three groups. Results: The AQ demonstrated small sensitivity to change in the aMCI and CN groups (d=0.33, d=0.23, respectively) and moderate sensitivity to change in the AD group (d=0.43). The AQ was associated with increases in the Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score (OR=1.20 (1.09, 1.32), P <0.001). Sample size calculations found that the AQ would require substantially fewer subjects than the MMSE given a 25% treatment effect. Conclusions: Although the AQ demonstrated small sensitivity to change in aMCI and CN individuals in terms of effect size, the AQ may be superior to objective cognitive tests in terms of required sample size for a clinical trial. As clinicians and researchers continue to identify and treat individuals in earlier stages of AD, there is a need for instruments that are sensitive to cognitive changes in these earlier stages.
    Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 01/2015; 7(1). DOI:10.1186/s13195-014-0092-z · 3.50 Impact Factor