ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2021
On the design of early-phase Alzheimer's disease clinical trials with cerebrospinal fluid tau outcomes.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe focus of Alzheimer's disease studies has shifted to earlier disease stages, including mild cognitive impairment. Biomarker inclusion criteria are often incorporated into mild cognitive impairment clinical trials to identify individuals with "prodromal Alzheimer's disease" to ensure appropriate drug targets and enrich for participants likely to develop Alzheimer's disease dementia. The use of these eligibility criteria may affect study power.
methodsWe investigated outcome variability and study power in the setting of proof-of-concept prodromal Alzheimer's disease trials that incorporate cerebrospinal fluid levels of total tau (t-tau) and phosphorylated (p-tau) as primary outcomes and how differing biomarker inclusion criteria affect power. We used data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative to model trial scenarios and to estimate the variance and within-subject correlation of total and phosphorylated tau. These estimates were then used to investigate the differences in study power for trials considering these two surrogate outcomes.
resultsPatient characteristics were similar for all eligibility criteria. The lowest outcome variance and highest within-subject correlation were obtained when phosphorylated tau was used as an eligibility criterion, compared to amyloid beta or total tau, regardless of whether total tau or phosphorylated tau were used as primary outcomes. Power increased when eligibility criteria were broadened to allow for enrollment of subjects with either low amyloid beta or high phosphorylated tau.
conclusionSpecific biomarker inclusion criteria may impact statistical power in trials using total tau or phosphorylated tau as the primary outcome. In concert with other important considerations such as treatment target and population of clinical interest, these results may have implications to the integrity and efficiency of prodromal Alzheimer's disease trial designs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.