BACKGROUND: Consensus definitions of meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) are needed. Existing estimates use clinician-rated anchors in clinically diagnosed Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) populations. Incorporating the care partner perspective offers important insights, and evaluating biomarker-confirmed cohorts aligns estimates with ongoing trials.
METHODS: Anchor-based analyses were conducted to evaluate MWPC on the CDR-SB in early AD (Tauriel; NCT03289143) using Caregiver Global Impression of Change in memory or daily activities.
RESULTS: Across time points and anchors, mean CDR-SB changes associated with the \"somewhat worse\" category ranged from 1.50 to 2.12 in early AD, 1.07 to 2.06 in mild cognitive impairment-AD, and 1.79 to 2.25 in mild AD.
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed ranges are appropriate to define meaningful progression on the CDR-SB in similar cohorts and support the interpretation of treatment benefit through MWPC analyses. Thresholds should be calibrated to the context of use; lower/higher thresholds may be applicable in studies of earlier/later disease over shorter/longer durations.
CONCLUSIONS: Within-patient CDR-SB change thresholds are provided using caregiver-rated anchors. 1.5 to 2.5 points may be an appropriate range in early AD trials of similar durations. Cumulative distribution function plots illustrate the benefit of a given treatment. When selecting thresholds, the target population and study design should be considered.

Incorporating person-centered outcomes into clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases has been challenging due to a deficiency in quantitative measures. Meanwhile, the integration of personally meaningful treatment targets in clinical practice remains qualitative, failing to truly inform evaluations, therapeutic interventions and longitudinal monitoring and support. We discuss the current advances and future directions in capturing individualized brain health outcomes and present an approach to integrate person-centered outcome in a scalable manner. Our approach stems from the evidence-based electronic Person-Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) program which prompts an individual to define personally meaningful treatment priorities and report level of confidence in managing items that matter to the individual the most (e.g., \"Do I feel confident in my ability to contribute to a conversation?\"). Deployed either as a single version (person only) or a dyad version (person and care partner), our proposed tool could be used as an endpoint in clinical trials, offering proof of meaningful intervention benefits and in clinical practice, by establishing an anchor for the therapeutic objectives sought by the individual.

暂无摘要。

The efficient and accurate execution of clinical trials testing novel treatments for Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) is a critical component of the field\'s collective efforts to develop effective disease-modifying treatments for AD. The lengthy and heterogeneous nature of clinical progression in AD contributes to the challenges inherent in demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit of any potential new AD therapy. The failure of many large and expensive clinical trials to date has prompted a focus on optimizing all aspects of decision making, to not only expedite the development of new treatments, but also maximize the value of the information that each clinical trial yields, so that all future clinical trials (including those that are negative) will contribute toward advancing the field. To address this important topic the Alzheimer\'s Association Research Roundtable convened December 1-2, 2020. The goals focused around identifying new directions and actionable steps to enhance clinical trial decision making in planned future studies.

What is this summary about? This is a plain language summary of an article published in the journal Advances in Therapy. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (also called the FDA) approved a medicine called vibegron to treat overactive bladder, also called OAB. The key results used to approve vibegron were from the EMPOWUR study. In the EMPOWUR study, participants who took vibegron had fewer urination episodes, urgency episodes, and bladder leaks each day than those who took a pill containing no medicine, called a placebo. At the end of the study, participants also rated how much their overactive bladder symptoms changed overall during EMPOWUR by responding to a survey. Many participants rated their overactive bladder symptoms as improved overall. This study asked if improvements in the number of urination episodes, urgency episodes, and bladder leaks caused by urgency were associated with feeling better overall. This study also looked at how many participants in the EMPOWUR study had improvements in the number of urination episodes, urgency episodes, and bladder leaks that were big enough to matter. A separate group of people with overactive bladder were asked about the magnitude of improvements that would be important to them. This group had not participated in the EMPOWUR study. What were the results? EMPOWUR participants who reported that taking medicine resulted in their overactive bladder symptoms getting better overall also generally reported fewer daily urinations, urgency episodes, and bladder leaks after treatment. Many had changes in their symptoms that were meaningful. Meaningful was defined for each symptom as: at least 15% fewer urinations, 50% fewer urgency episodes, and 75% fewer bladder leaks. Participants who received vibegron had meaningful reductions in the daily number of episodes of urination, urgency, and bladder leaks more often than those who received the placebo (pill with no active medicine). People with overactive bladder who did not participate in the study were interviewed and said that improvements to those symptoms, similar to those seen in the EMPOWUR study, would be important to them. What do the results mean? This study suggests that the results we measured in the EMPOWUR study may also reflect changes in overactive bladder symptoms that are big enough to be important to people with overactive bladder. Many participants who took vibegron in the EMPOWUR study felt that it helped to improve their individual overactive bladder symptoms. This may also help improve quality of life of participants. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03492281 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

BACKGROUND: In this phase of the ongoing What Matters Most study series, designed to evaluate concepts that are meaningful to people affected by Alzheimer\'s disease (AD), we quantified the importance of symptoms, impacts, and outcomes of AD to people at risk for or with AD and care partners of people with AD.
METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to individuals at risk for or with AD (Group 1: unimpaired cognition with evidence of AD pathology; Group 2: AD risk factors and subjective cognitive complaints/mild cognitive impairment; Group 3: mild AD) and to care partners of individuals with moderate AD (Group 4) or severe AD (Group 5). Respondents rated the importance of 42 symptoms, impacts, and outcomes on a scale ranging from 1 (\"not at all important\") to 5 (\"extremely important\").
RESULTS: Among the 274 respondents (70.4% female; 63.1% white), over half of patient respondents rated all 42 items as \"very important\" or \"extremely important,\" while care partners rated fewer items as \"very important\" or \"extremely important.\" Among the three patient groups, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating for any item was 3.4 (4.6), indicating that all items were at least moderately to very important. Among care partners of people with moderate or severe AD, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating was 2.1 (4.4), indicating that most items were rated as at least moderately important. Overall, taking medications correctly, not feeling down or depressed, and staying safe had the highest importance ratings among both patients and care partners, regardless of AD phase.
CONCLUSIONS: Concepts of importance to individuals affected by AD go beyond the common understanding of \"cognition\" or \"function\" alone, reflecting a desire to maintain independence, overall physical and mental health, emotional well-being, and safety. Preservation of these attributes may be key to understanding whether interventions deliver clinically meaningful outcomes.

Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) clinical trials are designed and powered to detect the impact of a therapeutic intervention, and there has been considerable discussion on what constitutes a clinically meaningful change in those receiving treatment versus placebo. The pathology of AD is complex, beginning many years before clinical symptoms are detectable, with multiple potential opportunities for therapeutic engagement. Introducing treatment strategies early in the disease and assessing meaningful change over the course of an 18-month clinical trial are critical to understanding the value to an effective intervention. With new clinical trial data expected soon on emerging therapeutics from several AD studies, the Alzheimer\'s Association convened a work group of experts to discuss key considerations for interpreting data from cognitive and functional measures and what is considered a clinically meaningful benefit or meaningful slowing of this fatal disease. Our expectations of outcomes from therapeutic interventions in AD may need to be modified.

As the focus of Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) therapeutic development shifts to the early stages of the disease, the clinical endpoints used in drug trials, and how these might translate into clinical practice, are of increasing importance. The clinical meaningfulness of trial outcome measures is often unclear, with a lack of conclusive evidence as to how these measures correlate to changes in disease progression and treatment response. Clarifying this would benefit all, including patients, care partners, primary care providers, regulators, and payers, and would enhance our understanding of the relationship between clinical trial endpoints and assessments used in everyday practice. At present, there is a wide range of assessment tools used in clinical trials for AD and substantial variability in measures selected as endpoints across these trials. The aim of this review is to summarize the most commonly used assessment tools for early stages of AD, describe their use in clinical trials and clinical practice, and discuss what might constitute clinically meaningful change in these measures in relation to disease progression and treatment response.

UNASSIGNED: The Integrated Alzheimer\'s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) has been used to detect differences in disease progression in early Alzheimer\'s disease (AD). The objectives of this study were to enhance understanding of iADRS point changes within the context of clinical trials, and to establish a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the iADRS.
UNASSIGNED: Data from AMARANTH and EXPEDITION3 were analyzed using various approaches, including anchor-based, distribution-based, regression analyses, and cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots. Three potential anchors were examined, including the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Functional Activities Questionnaire. Triangulation of all results was used to determine the MCID for participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and AD with mild dementia.
UNASSIGNED: All three anchors met criteria for \"sufficiently associated\" (|r| = 0.4-0.7). Cumulatively, results from anchor-based and distribution-based results converged to suggest an iADRS MCID of 5 points for MCI due to AD and 9 points for AD with mild dementia. Regression analyses and CDF plots supported these values.
UNASSIGNED: These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in clinical trials to detect a clinically meaningful outcome of AD progression.

The need for preventive therapies that interrupt the progression of Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) before the onset of symptoms or when symptoms are emerging is urgent and has spurred the ongoing development of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in preclinical and early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] to mild dementia). Assessing the meaningfulness of what are likely small initial treatment effects in these earlier stages of the AD patho-clinical disease continuum is a major challenge and warrants further consideration. BODY: To accommodate a shift towards earlier intervention in AD, we propose meaningful benefits as a new umbrella concept that encapsulates the spectrum of potentially desirable outcomes that may be demonstrated in clinical trials and other studies across the AD continuum, with an emphasis on preclinical AD and early AD (i.e., MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia). The meaningful benefits framework applies to data collection, assessment, and communication across three dimensions: (1) multidimensional clinical outcome assessments (COAs) including not only core disease outcomes related to cognition and function but also patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes, health and economic outcomes, and neuropsychiatric symptoms; (2) complementary analyses that help contextualize and expand the understanding of COA-based assessments, such as number-needed-to-treat or time-to-event analyses; and (3) assessment of both cumulative benefit and predictive benefit, where early changes on cognitive, functional, or biomarker assessments predict longer-term clinical benefit.
The concept of meaningful benefits emphasizes the importance of multidimensional reporting of clinical trial data while, conceptually, it advances our understanding of treatment effects in preclinical AD and mild cognitive impairment due to AD. We propose that such an approach will help bridge the gap between the emergence of DMTs and their clinical use, particularly now that a DMT is available for patients diagnosed with MCI due to AD and mild AD dementia.