Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimizing the Sample Sizes of Clinical Trials on Preclinical and Early Symptomatic Stage of Alzheimer Disease

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Clinical trials of investigational drugs for Alzheimer disease (AD) increasingly focus on the prodromal (symptomatic) stage of the illness and now its preclinical (asymptomatic) stage. Sensitive and specific cognitive and functional endpoints are needed to track subtle cognitive and functional changes in the early and preclinical stages to minimize sample sizes in these trials.

Objectives

To identify informative items in a standard clinical assessment protocol and a psychometric battery that are predictive of onset of dementia symptom.

Design

Longitudinal retrospective study.

Setting

Washington University (WU) Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (ADRC).

Participants

A total of 735 individuals at least 65 years old and cognitively normal at baseline from a longitudinal clinical cohort at the WU Knight ADRC.

Measurements

The annual clinical assessment included a wide spectrum of functional and cognitive domains; a comprehensive psychometric battery was completed about 2 weeks after the clinical evaluation. Psychometricians are blinded to the results of the clinical evaluation and to the prior performance of the participants on the psychometric tests.

Results

The mean age at baseline of the 735 participants was 74.30 and 62.31% were female. 240 individuals developed prodromal dementia symptoms (consistent with mild cognitive impairment due to AD and with very mild AD dementia) during longitudinal follow-up (mean follow-up=6.79 years). Among a total of 562 items in the clinical and cognitive assessments under analysis, 292 (52%) were identified as informative because their longitudinal changes were predictive of symptomatic onset. When these items were used to form the functional and cognitive composites, the longitudinal rates of changes were free of a learning effect and captured subtle longitudinal progression prior to symptomatic onset. The rates of change were much greater right after the symptomatic onset than those from the functional and cognitive composites formed using non-informative items. Although the sample sizes for prevention trials (prior to symptomatic onset) using the informative items still yield large numbers, the sample sizes for early treatment trial (after symptomatic onset) was much smaller than those derived from all the items or from the noninformative items alone.

Conclusions

The antecedent longitudinal changes in nearly half of the items in a clinical assessment protocol and a comprehensive cognitive battery did not show statistically significant ability to predict the dementia symptom onset, and hence may be non-informative to track the preclinical functional and cognitive progression of AD. The remaining items, on the other hand, captured some of the preclinical changes prior to the symptom onset, but performed much better right after the symptom onset. Currently ongoing prevention trials on preclinical AD of elderly individuals may need to re-assess the sample sizes and statistical power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Price JL, Morris JC: Tangles and plaques in nondemented aging and «preclinical» Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol 1999, 45(3):358–368.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sperling RA, Aisen PS, Beckett LA et al: Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011, 7(3):280–292.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheehan B: Assessment scales in dementia. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2012, 5(6):349–358.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Twamley EW, Ropacki SA, Bondi MW: Neuropsychological and neuroimaging changes in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2006, 12(5):707–735.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Morris JC: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993, 43(11):2412–2414.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. JA S Ja Y: Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention. In. New York: The Haworth Press; 1986: 165–173.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, Coben LA, Martin RL: A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1982, 140:566–572.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pfeiffer E: A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975, 23(10):433–441.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: «Mini-mental state». A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975, 12(3):189–198.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Katzman R, Brown T, Fuld P et al: Validation of a short Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test of cognitive impairment. Am J Psychiatry 1983, 140(6):734–739.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goodglass HaK, E: The Assessment of Aphasia and Related Disorders, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cummings JL: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology 1997, 48(5 Suppl 6):S10–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah CH, Jr., Chance JM, Filos S: Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol 1982, 37(3):323–329.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferman TJ, Smith GE, Boeve BF et al: DLB fluctuations - Specific features that reliably differentiate DLB from AD and normal aging. Neurology 2004, 62(2):181–187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Blessed G, Tomlinson, B.E., and Roth, M..: The association between quantitative measures of dementia and of senile change in the cerebral grey matter of elderly subjects. British Journal of Psychiatry 1968, 1114:797–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wechsler D: Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. In. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wechsler DaS, C.P: Wechsler Memory Scale. In. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Benton AL: The Revised Visual Retention Test: Clinical and experimental applications. In. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goodglass HaK, E.,: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination Booklet. In., 3rd ed. edn. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wechsler D: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. In. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grober E, Buschke H, Crystal H, Bang S, Dresner R: Screening for dementia by memory testing. Neurology 1988, 38(6):900–903.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Morris JC, Weintraub S, Chui HC et al: The uniform data set (UDS): Clinical and cognitive variables and descriptive data from Alzheimer disease centers. Alz Dis Assoc Dis 2006, 20(4):210–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 edn. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

  24. Bogaerts K, Lesaffre E: Estimating local and global measures of association for bivariate interval censored data with a smooth estimate of the density. Statistics in Medicine 2008, 27(28):5941–5955.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sperling RA, Rentz DM, Johnson KA et al: The A4 Study: Stopping AD Before Symptoms Begin? Science Translational Medicine 2014, 6(228).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mills SM, Mallmann J, Santacruz AM et al: Preclinical trials in autosomal dominant AD: Implementation of the DIAN-TU trial. Rev Neurol-France 2013, 169(10):737–743.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ayutyanont N, Langbaum JBS, Hendrix SB et al: The Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative Composite Cognitive Test Score: Sample Size Estimates for the Evaluation of Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments in Presenilin 1 E280A Mutation Carriers. J Clin Psychiat 2014, 75(6):652–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Xiong C, Zhu, K, Yu, K, Miller, JP: Statistical Modeling in Biomedical Research: Longitudinal Data Analysis. In: Handbook of Statistics. Volume 27, edn. Edited by Rao CR MJ, Rao DC. London: Elsevier; 2007: 429–463.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ringman JM, Grill J, Rodriguez-Agudelo Y, Chavez M, Xiong C: Commentary on «a roadmap for the prevention of dementia II: Leon Thal Symposium 2008.» Prevention trials in persons at risk for dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease: opportunities and challenges. Alzheimers Dement 2009, 5(2):166–171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC et al: Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997, 11 Suppl 2:S13–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contribute equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    J. Luo

  2. Siteman Cancer Center Biostatistics Core, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    J. Luo

  3. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA

    J. Luo, H. Weng & Chengjie Xiong

  4. Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    J. C. Morris & Chengjie Xiong

  5. Departments of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    J. C. Morris

  6. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    J. C. Morris

  7. Division of Biostatistics, Campus Box 8067, 4523 Clayton Ave., St. Louis, MO, 63110-1093, USA

    Chengjie Xiong

Authors
  1. J. Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Weng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. C. Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengjie Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengjie Xiong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luo, J., Weng, H., Morris, J.C. et al. Minimizing the Sample Sizes of Clinical Trials on Preclinical and Early Symptomatic Stage of Alzheimer Disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 5, 110–119 (2018). https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2018.16

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2018.16

Key words

Search

Navigation