Abstract:Abstract Background Randomized clinical trials of Alzheimer’s‐modifying drugs typically report a clinical effect as the final observation difference in means for a cognitive endpoint between treated and placebo groups. However, randomization of subjects naturally following different cognitive decline trajectories could produce a between‐group endpoint difference even when a drug has no disease‐modifying effect. Recent work used data from ADNI subjects matching trial inclusion criteria to simulate patient trajectories [Jutten et al. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000012022 ]. We build on such simulations by incorporating a trial’s specific design parameters, including multiple visits, visit time windowing, dropout rate, and measurement noise using jittering. We estimate treatment‐independent group differences in a cognitive endpoint’s rate of change in simulations of the Phase 3 aducanumab and lecanemab trials. Method 563 ADNI subjects matched inclusion criteria for the identically designed Phase 3 aducanumab trials EMERGE and ENGAGE [clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02484547]. We fitted a continuous time linear mixed effect model tracking CDSRB change from baseline (CDRSBΔbl). ADNI subjects’ baseline data were resampled and jittered, generating data for 1,070 synthetic subjects total while preserving the real trials’ baseline Alzheimer’s stage distribution. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to “treated” and “placebo” groups, but without any treatment effect. We simulated 4 visits, ∼26 weeks apart, with 30% dropout. Our sample size and visit scheme matches the real trials’ Statistical Analysis Plans. We generated 10,000 simulated trials, each a unique randomization of subject trajectories. The “treated” vs. “placebo” CDRSBΔbl linear slope difference was extracted from each simulation. We repeated this procedure for the demographics and design of lecanemab’s Phase 3 trial Clarity AD [clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03887455]. Result Histograms of simulated slope differences differ between the trial designs (see Figures). Averages are zero because there is no simulated treatment effect. Each successful trial’s real‐world difference (EMERGE high dose: –22%, Clarity AD: –27%) corresponds to a statistically significant reduction in cognitive decline rate for treated subjects vs. placebo. Conclusion Our results suggest low false positive probabilities for the successful trials. Cohort composition, sampling, and other trial characteristics might influence treatment‐independent group difference in cognitive decline rate. With our method, future trials could target treatment effects outside the target population’s false positive range.

Statistical considerations when estimating time‐saving treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

Simulation‐based effect size analysis in the absence of drug effects to inform the design of clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease

The relative efficiency of time-to-progression and continuous measures of cognition in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer's

A Statistical Framework for Assessing the Relationship between Biomarkers and Clinical Endpoints in Alzheimer's Disease

Assessing the clinical meaningfulness of slowing CDR-SB progression with disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer disease

Progression analysis versus traditional methods to quantify slowing of disease progression in Alzheimer's disease

Meta TCT: Towards Interpretable Treatment Effects in Clinical Trials for Progressive Diseases

Potential Impact of Slowing Disease Progression in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease on Patient Quality of Life, Caregiver Time, and Total Societal Costs: Estimates Based on Findings from GERAS-US Study

Assessing clinical progression measures in Alzheimer's disease trials: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Medical Costs and Caregiver Burden of Delivering Disease-Modifying Alzheimer's Treatments with Different Duration and Route of Administration

Understanding the impact of slowing disease progression for individuals with biomarker confirmed early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease

Evaluation of Clinical Meaningfulness of Fortasyn Connect in Terms of “Time Saved”

Sample size estimates for biomarker-based outcome measures in clinical trials in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease

Analytic Challenges in Clinical Trials in Early Alzheimers Disease

Scaling and interpreting treatment effects in clinical trials using restricted mean survival time

Critical design considerations for time-to-event endpoints in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials

Optimising Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis and Treatment: Assessing Cost-Utility of Integrating Blood Biomarkers in Clinical Practice for Disease-Modifying Treatment

Simplifying Alzheimer's Disease Monitoring: A Novel Machine-Learning Approach to Estimate the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box Changes Using the Mini-Mental State Examination and Functional Activities Questionnaire

Biomarkers as Endpoints in Clinical Trials for Alzheimer's Disease

Implications of treatment duration and frequency for value and cost-effective price of Alzheimer treatments

Consistency between Treatment Effects on Clinical and Brain Atrophy Outcomes in Alzheimer’s Disease Trials