Strategies to reduce sample sizes in Alzheimer's disease primary and secondary prevention trials using longitudinal amyloid PET imaging.
Alzheimer’s disease
Amyloid
Clinical trial
PET imaging
Prevention
Sample size
Journal
Alzheimer's research & therapy
ISSN: 1758-9193
Titre abrégé: Alzheimers Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101511643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2021
19 04 2021
Historique:
received:
17
11
2020
accepted:
26
03
2021
entrez:
20
4
2021
pubmed:
21
4
2021
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Detecting subtle-to-moderate biomarker changes such as those in amyloid PET imaging becomes increasingly relevant in the context of primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This work aimed to determine if and when distribution volume ratio (DVR; derived from dynamic imaging) and regional quantitative values could improve statistical power in AD prevention trials. Baseline and annualized % change in [ Although highly correlated to DVR (ρ = .96), cortical SUVR overestimated DVR cross-sectionally and in annual % change. In secondary prevention trials, DVR required 143 subjects per arm, compared with 176 for SUVR. Both restricting inclusion to individuals with intermediate amyloid burden levels or to APOE-ε4 carriers alone further reduced sample sizes. For primary prevention, SUVR required less subjects per arm (n = 855) compared with DVR (n = 1508) and the early composite also provided considerable sample size reductions (n = 855 to n = 509 for SUVR, n = 1508 to n = 734 for DVR). Sample sizes in AD secondary prevention trials can be reduced by the acquisition of dynamic PET scans and/or by restricting inclusion to subjects with intermediate amyloid burden or to APOE-ε4 carriers only. Using a targeted early composite only leads to reductions of sample size requirements in primary prevention trials. These findings support strategies to enable smaller Proof-of-Concept Phase II clinical trials to better streamline drug development.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Detecting subtle-to-moderate biomarker changes such as those in amyloid PET imaging becomes increasingly relevant in the context of primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). This work aimed to determine if and when distribution volume ratio (DVR; derived from dynamic imaging) and regional quantitative values could improve statistical power in AD prevention trials.
METHODS
Baseline and annualized % change in [
RESULTS
Although highly correlated to DVR (ρ = .96), cortical SUVR overestimated DVR cross-sectionally and in annual % change. In secondary prevention trials, DVR required 143 subjects per arm, compared with 176 for SUVR. Both restricting inclusion to individuals with intermediate amyloid burden levels or to APOE-ε4 carriers alone further reduced sample sizes. For primary prevention, SUVR required less subjects per arm (n = 855) compared with DVR (n = 1508) and the early composite also provided considerable sample size reductions (n = 855 to n = 509 for SUVR, n = 1508 to n = 734 for DVR).
CONCLUSION
Sample sizes in AD secondary prevention trials can be reduced by the acquisition of dynamic PET scans and/or by restricting inclusion to subjects with intermediate amyloid burden or to APOE-ε4 carriers only. Using a targeted early composite only leads to reductions of sample size requirements in primary prevention trials. These findings support strategies to enable smaller Proof-of-Concept Phase II clinical trials to better streamline drug development.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33875021
doi: 10.1186/s13195-021-00819-2
pii: 10.1186/s13195-021-00819-2
pmc: PMC8056524
doi:
Substances chimiques
Amyloid
0
Aniline Compounds
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
82Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P01 AG003991
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : P01 AG026276
Pays : United States
Références
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Aug;11(8):975-85
pubmed: 26141264
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2020 Mar 4;12(1):22
pubmed: 32131891
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Nov;14(11):1387-1396
pubmed: 30420035
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1996 Sep;16(5):834-40
pubmed: 8784228
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016 May 12;8(1):18
pubmed: 27176461
Neuroimage. 2015 Feb 15;107:55-64
pubmed: 25485714
J Nucl Med. 2013 Sep;54(9):1570-6
pubmed: 23940304
Neuroimage. 2009 May 15;46(1):154-9
pubmed: 19457369
Neurology. 2016 Aug 2;87(5):539-47
pubmed: 27371494
EJNMMI Res. 2019 Mar 27;9(1):32
pubmed: 30919133
Hum Brain Mapp. 2003 Aug;19(4):224-47
pubmed: 12874777
J Nucl Med. 2019 Jan;60(1):100-106
pubmed: 29777003
Brain. 2018 Jun 1;141(6):1828-1839
pubmed: 29672664
J Nucl Med. 2009 Mar;50(3):348-55
pubmed: 19223409
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 3;378(18):1691-1703
pubmed: 29719179
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Mar 19;6(228):228fs13
pubmed: 24648338
N Engl J Med. 2021 May 6;384(18):1691-1704
pubmed: 33720637
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2020 Aug 13;6(1):e12060
pubmed: 32802934
Neuroimage. 2008 Aug 1;42(1):76-86
pubmed: 18541442
Neuroimage. 2020 Jan 15;205:116266
pubmed: 31648001
Brain Commun. 2020;2(1):fcaa007
pubmed: 32140682
Lancet Neurol. 2013 Apr;12(4):357-67
pubmed: 23477989
Nat Commun. 2017 Oct 31;8(1):1214
pubmed: 29089479
Alzheimers Dement. 2019 Feb;15(2):205-216
pubmed: 30347188
J Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;60(4):536-540
pubmed: 30190305
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015 Nov;35(11):1771-82
pubmed: 26058700
Nature. 2016 Aug 31;537(7618):50-6
pubmed: 27582220
J Nucl Med. 2020 Feb;61(2):166-171
pubmed: 31836683
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Nov 01;76(11):1319-1329
pubmed: 31314895
JAMA Neurol. 2019 Jul 15;:
pubmed: 31305929
J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2020;7(1):29-36
pubmed: 32010923
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25;378(4):321-330
pubmed: 29365294
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 Apr 25;19:406-416
pubmed: 30035025
Transl Neurodegener. 2016 Nov 16;5:20
pubmed: 27891223
Neurology. 2017 Sep 5;89(10):1028-1034
pubmed: 28794245
J Nucl Med. 2017 Jul;58(7):1019-1024
pubmed: 28522743
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 Dec;40(12):2464-2474
pubmed: 31575335
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2021 Mar;41(3):579-589
pubmed: 32281514
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):968-80
pubmed: 16530430
Neurology. 2017 Nov 14;89(20):2031-2038
pubmed: 29046362
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Oct;36(10):1629-38
pubmed: 19384547
J Nucl Med. 2015 Apr;56(4):560-6
pubmed: 25745091
Alzheimers Dement. 2020 May;16(5):750-758
pubmed: 32281303
Med Res Rev. 2020 Jan;40(1):339-384
pubmed: 31347728
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jan;48(1):302-310
pubmed: 32601802
Neurology. 2020 Sep 15;95(11):e1538-e1553
pubmed: 32675080
Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2017 May 17;3(3):402-409
pubmed: 29067346
Brain. 2016 Sep;139(Pt 9):2540-53
pubmed: 27401520
Neurology. 2018 Nov 6;91(19):e1809-e1821
pubmed: 30305451
J Nucl Med. 2019 Apr;60(4):541-547
pubmed: 30315145
Cell. 2019 Apr 4;177(2):256-271.e22
pubmed: 30879788
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 06;8(11):e73377
pubmed: 24223109
Neurology. 2019 Jul 9;93(2):72-79
pubmed: 31167933
Alzheimers Dement. 2012 Jan;8(1):1-13
pubmed: 22265587
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 Feb;40(2):288-297
pubmed: 30755135
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 23;370(4):322-33
pubmed: 24450891
Neuroimage. 2005 Feb 15;24(4):969-79
pubmed: 15670674
Neurobiol Aging. 2020 Oct;94:111-120
pubmed: 32603776
JAMA. 2015 May 19;313(19):1924-38
pubmed: 25988462
Alzheimers Dement. 2019 Sep;15(9):1172-1182
pubmed: 31405824