Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets

Abstract Background The Placebo Group Simulation Approach (PGSA) aims at partially replacing randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs), making use of data from historical control groups in order to decrease the needed number of study participants exposed to lengthy placebo treatment. PGSA algorit...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Manfred Berres, Andreas U. Monsch, René Spiegel
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-05-01
Series:Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00832-5
id doaj-56a2e40454df459290501811272e4a04
record_format Article
spelling doaj-56a2e40454df459290501811272e4a042021-05-09T11:42:31ZengBMCAlzheimer’s Research & Therapy1758-91932021-05-0113111210.1186/s13195-021-00832-5Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data setsManfred Berres0Andreas U. Monsch1René Spiegel2University of Applied Sciences KoblenzUniversity Department of Geriatric Medicine FELIX PLATTERUniversity Department of Geriatric Medicine FELIX PLATTERAbstract Background The Placebo Group Simulation Approach (PGSA) aims at partially replacing randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs), making use of data from historical control groups in order to decrease the needed number of study participants exposed to lengthy placebo treatment. PGSA algorithms to create virtual control groups were originally derived from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) data of the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. To produce more generalizable algorithms, we aimed to compile five different MCI databases in a heuristic manner to create a “standard control algorithm” for use in future clinical trials. Methods We compared data from two North American cohort studies (n=395 and 4328, respectively), one company-sponsored international clinical drug trial (n=831) and two convenience patient samples, one from Germany (n=726), and one from Switzerland (n=1558). Results Despite differences between the five MCI samples regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, their baseline demographic and cognitive performance data varied less than expected. However, the five samples differed markedly with regard to their subsequent cognitive performance and clinical development: (1) MCI patients from the drug trial did not deteriorate on verbal fluency over 3 years, whereas patients in the other samples did; (2) relatively few patients from the drug trial progressed from MCI to dementia (about 10% after 4 years), in contrast to the other four samples with progression rates over 30%. Conclusion Conventional MCI criteria were insufficient to allow for the creation of well-defined and internationally comparable samples of MCI patients. More recently published criteria for MCI or “MCI due to AD” are unlikely to remedy this situation. The Alzheimer scientific community needs to agree on a standard set of neuropsychological tests including appropriate selection criteria to make MCI a scientifically more useful concept. Patient data from different sources would then be comparable, and the scientific merits of algorithm-based study designs such as the PGSA could be properly assessed.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00832-5Historical controlsMCI criteriaClinical trialCohort studyConvenience sampleMeta-analysis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Manfred Berres
Andreas U. Monsch
René Spiegel
spellingShingle Manfred Berres
Andreas U. Monsch
René Spiegel
Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy
Historical controls
MCI criteria
Clinical trial
Cohort study
Convenience sample
Meta-analysis
author_facet Manfred Berres
Andreas U. Monsch
René Spiegel
author_sort Manfred Berres
title Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
title_short Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
title_full Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
title_fullStr Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
title_full_unstemmed Using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in Alzheimer disease? An analysis of longitudinal MCI (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
title_sort using historical data to facilitate clinical prevention trials in alzheimer disease? an analysis of longitudinal mci (mild cognitive impairment) data sets
publisher BMC
series Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy
issn 1758-9193
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Abstract Background The Placebo Group Simulation Approach (PGSA) aims at partially replacing randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs), making use of data from historical control groups in order to decrease the needed number of study participants exposed to lengthy placebo treatment. PGSA algorithms to create virtual control groups were originally derived from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) data of the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database. To produce more generalizable algorithms, we aimed to compile five different MCI databases in a heuristic manner to create a “standard control algorithm” for use in future clinical trials. Methods We compared data from two North American cohort studies (n=395 and 4328, respectively), one company-sponsored international clinical drug trial (n=831) and two convenience patient samples, one from Germany (n=726), and one from Switzerland (n=1558). Results Despite differences between the five MCI samples regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria, their baseline demographic and cognitive performance data varied less than expected. However, the five samples differed markedly with regard to their subsequent cognitive performance and clinical development: (1) MCI patients from the drug trial did not deteriorate on verbal fluency over 3 years, whereas patients in the other samples did; (2) relatively few patients from the drug trial progressed from MCI to dementia (about 10% after 4 years), in contrast to the other four samples with progression rates over 30%. Conclusion Conventional MCI criteria were insufficient to allow for the creation of well-defined and internationally comparable samples of MCI patients. More recently published criteria for MCI or “MCI due to AD” are unlikely to remedy this situation. The Alzheimer scientific community needs to agree on a standard set of neuropsychological tests including appropriate selection criteria to make MCI a scientifically more useful concept. Patient data from different sources would then be comparable, and the scientific merits of algorithm-based study designs such as the PGSA could be properly assessed.
topic Historical controls
MCI criteria
Clinical trial
Cohort study
Convenience sample
Meta-analysis
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-021-00832-5
work_keys_str_mv AT manfredberres usinghistoricaldatatofacilitateclinicalpreventiontrialsinalzheimerdiseaseananalysisoflongitudinalmcimildcognitiveimpairmentdatasets
AT andreasumonsch usinghistoricaldatatofacilitateclinicalpreventiontrialsinalzheimerdiseaseananalysisoflongitudinalmcimildcognitiveimpairmentdatasets
AT renespiegel usinghistoricaldatatofacilitateclinicalpreventiontrialsinalzheimerdiseaseananalysisoflongitudinalmcimildcognitiveimpairmentdatasets
_version_ 1721454151465959424