1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Application of a Novel Endpoint Staging Framework: Proof of Concept in the AMBAR Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          A theoretical endpoint staging framework was previously developed and published, aligning outcomes (i.e., memory) to the stage of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in which a given outcome is most relevant (i.e., has the greatest risk of degradation). The framework guides the selection of endpoints measuring outcomes relevant within a target AD population. Here, a proof of concept is presented via post-hoc analyses of the Alzheimer Management by Albumin Replacement (AMBAR) Phase 2b clinical trial in patients with AD (NCT01561053, 2012).

          Objective:

          To evaluate whether aligning endpoints measuring cognition, function, and quality of life to hypothesized ‘target’ stages of AD yields magnitudes of treatment efficacy greater than those reported in the AMBAR full analysis set (FAS).

          Methods:

          Three endpoints were tested: ADAS-Cog 12, ADCS-ADL, and QoL-AD. The magnitude of treatment efficacy was hypothesized to be maximized in the target stages of mild, mild-to-moderate, and very mild AD, respectively, compared to the full analysis set (FAS) and non-target stages.

          Results:

          For ADAS-Cog 12, the magnitude of treatment efficacy was largest in the non-target stage (–4.0, p = 0.0760) compared to target stage and FAS. For ADCS-ADL and QoL-AD, the magnitude of treatment efficacy was largest in the target stage (14.2, p = 0.0003; 2.4, p < 0.0001, respectively) compared to non-target stage and FAS.

          Conclusions:

          Findings indicated that evaluating endpoints in the most relevant AD stage can increase the magnitude of the observed treatment efficacy. Evidence provides preliminary proof of concept for the endpoint staging framework.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

          The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

            In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group* under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease

              Neurology, 34(7), 939-939
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Alzheimers Dis
                J Alzheimers Dis
                JAD
                Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
                IOS Press (Nieuwe Hemweg 6B, 1013 BG Amsterdam, The Netherlands )
                1387-2877
                1875-8908
                13 March 2024
                02 April 2024
                2024
                : 98
                : 3
                : 1079-1094
                Affiliations
                [a ]OPEN Health, London, UK
                [b ]Medcurio Inc, Oakland, CA, USA
                [c ]The Psychometrics Team, Sheridan WY, USA
                [d ]Albert Einstein College of Medicine , New York, NY, USA
                [e ]Grifols SA – Sant Cugat Del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain
                [f ]Formerly OPEN Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
                [g ]Formerly Grifols SSNA, Research Triangle Park , NC, USA
                [h ]Grifols SSNA, Research Triangle Park , NC, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Lauren Podger, OPEN Health, London. E-mail: laurenpodger@ 123456gmail.com .
                Article
                JAD231197
                10.3233/JAD-231197
                11091599
                38489186
                c49f6574-f701-45ed-ad8d-1c6c289e4709
                © 2024 – The authors. Published by IOS Press

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 February 2024
                Categories
                Research Article

                alzheimer’s disease,ambar,cognition,endpoint staging framework,function,outcome measures,quality of life,trial endpoints

                Comments

                Comment on this article