scholarly journals Is it time to use predictive models to boost power of Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials? A post‐hoc analysis of phase 3 solanezumab trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (S9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ezzati ◽  
Christos Davatzikos ◽  
David A. Wolk ◽  
Paul S. Aisen ◽  
Richard B. Lipton
Author(s):  
P.S. Aisen ◽  
R. Raman

Dr. Umbricht suggests that the two examples we cite in our viewpoint (1) support rather than call into question the value of interim futility analyses in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) trials. He points out that the first example, the Phase 3 trials of aducanumab, the futility analyses did indeed indicate a trend toward a beneficial treatment effect in one of the two trials though the planned pooled futility decision led to stopping the trials. In the second case, in which a futility analysis led to a halt, full analysis of available data suggested efficacy; a subsequent study was negative.


Author(s):  
S.B. Hendrix ◽  
H. Soininen ◽  
A.M.J. van Hees ◽  
N. Ellison ◽  
P.J. Visser ◽  
...  

As research evolves in prodromal AD, the need to validate sufficiently sensitive outcome measures, e.g. the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) is clear. In the LipiDiDiet randomized trial in prodromal AD, cognitive decline in the study population was much less than expected in the timeframe studied. While the primary composite endpoint was insufficiently sensitive to detect a difference in the modified intention to treat population, the per-protocol population showed less decline in the active than the control group, indicating better treatment effects with regular product intake. These results were further strengthened by significant benefits on secondary endpoints of cognition and function, and brain atrophy. The present post-hoc analysis investigated whether ADCOMS could detect a difference between groups in the LipiDiDiet population (138 active, 140 control). The estimated mean change in ADCOMS from baseline (standard error) was 0.085 (0.018) in the active and 0.133 (0.018) in the control group; estimated mean treatment difference -0.048 (95% confidence intervals -0.090, -0.007; p=0.023), or 36% less decline in the active group. This suggests ADCOMS identified the cognitive and functional benefits observed previously, confirming the sensitivity of this composite measure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document