| 1. |
- Lopes Alves, Isadora, et al.
(författare)
-
Strategies to reduce sample sizes in Alzheimer’s disease primary and secondary prevention trials using longitudinal amyloid PET imaging
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's Research and Therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1758-9193. ; 13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- 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 [11C]PIB SUVR and DVR were computed for a global (cortical) and regional (early) composite from scans of 237 cognitively unimpaired subjects from the OASIS-3 database (www.oasis-brains.org). Bland-Altman and correlation analyses were used to assess the relationship between SUVR and DVR. General linear models and linear mixed effects models were used to determine effects of age, sex, and APOE-ε4 carriership on baseline and longitudinal amyloid burden. Finally, differences in statistical power of SUVR and DVR (cortical or early composite) were assessed considering three anti-amyloid trial scenarios: secondary prevention trials including subjects with (1) intermediate-to-high (Centiloid > 20.1), or (2) intermediate (20.1 < Centiloid ≤ 49.4) amyloid burden, and (3) a primary prevention trial focusing on subjects with low amyloid burden (Centiloid ≤ 20.1). Trial scenarios were set to detect 20% reduction in accumulation rates across the whole population and in APOE-ε4 carriers only. 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Wink, Alle Meije, et al.
(författare)
-
Quantifying AD-related brain amyloid with linearised progression models : model-based vs. data-based.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's and Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 18:S1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Brain amyloid-β (Aβ) is the pathological hallmark of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In logistic disease models, Aβ accumulation is a sigmoid function of time-since-disease-onset (TSDO) (figure 1). Previous positron emission tomography (PET)-based models vary accumulation onset(t50) and duration(r) globally; capacity(K) and baseline(NS) regionally (Whittington2018). We confirm existing approaches and propose a more powerful ICA-based approach to quantify disease severity and estimate TSDO. Method: We used 1071 18F-florbetapir standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) images from the ADNI-2 study (adni.loni.usc.edu/data-samples/data-types/pet). Images were mapped into MNI space. Averages were extracted using the Harvard-Oxford brain-atlas. Whole-brain tracer-specific sigmoid parameters (Jack2013) obtained from the literature were used to estimate TSDO. Of 16 models of regional Aβ accumulation (each of the 4 regional sigmoid parameters varied either regionally or globally), the optimal Bayesian information criterion was found with global t50 and r, and regional NS and K (figure 1) with global values r=6.16y and t50=4.10y. Linearised maps of NS and K were obtained by regressing the SUVR maps onto the global sigmoid. We also estimated these maps as independent components, using a 2-component ICA on the SUVR maps. Both outcomes were used to quantify Aβ accumulation from SUVR images as weighting factors of the accumulation map. We compared the weights from the logistic model and the ICA model in ADNI, using effect size measured with Hedges' g between cognitively normal (CN), subjective memory complaints (SMC), mild cognitive impairment (EMCI/MCI/LMCI) and AD groups. We compared 3 longitudinal visits (N=112) in the OASIS-3 study (see www.oasis-brains.org) with both methods, global SUVR and Centiloid (Klunk2015) using 11C-PiB PET SUVR images. Result: Maps of accumulation capacity from both models had spatial correlation of 0.86 (figure 2); baseline maps had spatial correlation of 0.95. Hedges' g between ADNI groups was 2.25 for K, and 2.42 for ICA (1.46 for global SUVR). In OASIS-3, Hedges' g between visits was 1.24 for K, 1.46 for ICA (global SUVR 0.15, Centiloid 0.4). Conclusion: We demonstrate that linear accumulation models can be used to quantify brain Aβ with PET; maps obtained by ICA yield larger effect sizes than the logistic method for differentiating groups and measuring changes between visits.
|
|
