Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score: a Post-Hoc Analysis Using Data from the LipiDiDiet Trial in Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease

IF 8.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Jpad-Journal of Prevention of Alzheimers Disease Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.14283/jpad.2019.33
S. Hendrix, Hilkka Soininen, A. V. Hees, N. Ellison, Pieter Jelle Visser, Pieter Jelle Visser, Alina Solomon, Alina Solomon, Alina Solomon, A. Attali, K. Blennow, K. Blennow, M. Kivipelto, M. Kivipelto, M. Kivipelto, T. Hartmann
{"title":"Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score: a Post-Hoc Analysis Using Data from the LipiDiDiet Trial in Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease","authors":"S. Hendrix, Hilkka Soininen, A. V. Hees, N. Ellison, Pieter Jelle Visser, Pieter Jelle Visser, Alina Solomon, Alina Solomon, Alina Solomon, A. Attali, K. Blennow, K. Blennow, M. Kivipelto, M. Kivipelto, M. Kivipelto, T. Hartmann","doi":"10.14283/jpad.2019.33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As research evolves in prodromal AD, the need to validate sufficiently sensitive outcome measures, e.g. the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) is clear. In the LipiDiDiet randomized trial in prodromal AD, cognitive decline in the study population was much less than expected in the timeframe studied. While the primary composite endpoint was insufficiently sensitive to detect a difference in the modified intention to treat population, the per-protocol population showed less decline in the active than the control group, indicating better treatment effects with regular product intake. These results were further strengthened by significant benefits on secondary endpoints of cognition and function, and brain atrophy. The present post-hoc analysis investigated whether ADCOMS could detect a difference between groups in the LipiDiDiet population (138 active, 140 control). The estimated mean change in ADCOMS from baseline (standard error) was 0.085 (0.018) in the active and 0.133 (0.018) in the control group; estimated mean treatment difference −0.048 (95% confidence intervals −0.090, −0.007; p=0.023), or 36% less decline in the active group. This suggests ADCOMS identified the cognitive and functional benefits observed previously, confirming the sensitivity of this composite measure.","PeriodicalId":48606,"journal":{"name":"Jpad-Journal of Prevention of Alzheimers Disease","volume":"6 1","pages":"232 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jpad-Journal of Prevention of Alzheimers Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2019.33","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

As research evolves in prodromal AD, the need to validate sufficiently sensitive outcome measures, e.g. the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) is clear. In the LipiDiDiet randomized trial in prodromal AD, cognitive decline in the study population was much less than expected in the timeframe studied. While the primary composite endpoint was insufficiently sensitive to detect a difference in the modified intention to treat population, the per-protocol population showed less decline in the active than the control group, indicating better treatment effects with regular product intake. These results were further strengthened by significant benefits on secondary endpoints of cognition and function, and brain atrophy. The present post-hoc analysis investigated whether ADCOMS could detect a difference between groups in the LipiDiDiet population (138 active, 140 control). The estimated mean change in ADCOMS from baseline (standard error) was 0.085 (0.018) in the active and 0.133 (0.018) in the control group; estimated mean treatment difference −0.048 (95% confidence intervals −0.090, −0.007; p=0.023), or 36% less decline in the active group. This suggests ADCOMS identified the cognitive and functional benefits observed previously, confirming the sensitivity of this composite measure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿尔茨海默病综合评分:使用前驱阿尔茨海默病脂质饮食试验数据的事后分析
随着前驱阿尔茨海默病研究的发展,需要验证足够敏感的结果测量,例如阿尔茨海默病综合评分(ADCOMS)。在针对AD前驱期的lipdidiet随机试验中,研究人群的认知能力下降在研究时间框架内远低于预期。虽然主要复合终点不够敏感,无法检测到修改后治疗人群的差异,但按方案治疗人群的活跃程度下降幅度小于对照组,表明定期摄入产品的治疗效果更好。认知和功能以及脑萎缩的次要终点的显著益处进一步加强了这些结果。目前的事后分析调查了ADCOMS是否能检测到lipdidiet人群(138例活跃人群,140例对照组)组间的差异。与基线相比,活动组ADCOMS的估计平均变化(标准误差)为0.085(0.018),对照组为0.133 (0.018);估计平均治疗差- 0.048(95%置信区间- 0.090,- 0.007;P =0.023),或活跃组减少36%。这表明ADCOMS确定了先前观察到的认知和功能益处,证实了该复合测量的敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
7.80%
发文量
85
期刊介绍: The JPAD « Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’Disease » will publish reviews, original research articles and short reports to improve our knowledge in the field of Alzheimer prevention including : neurosciences, biomarkers, imaging, epidemiology, public health, physical cognitive exercise, nutrition, risk and protective factors, drug development, trials design, and heath economic outcomes. JPAD will publish also the meeting abstracts from Clinical Trial on Alzheimer Disease (CTAD) and will be distributed both in paper and online version worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Are Population-Level Approaches to Dementia Risk Reduction Under-Researched? A Rapid Review of the Dementia Prevention Literature. Expectancy Does Not Predict 18-month Treatment Outcomes with Cognitive Training in Mild Cognitive Impairment. Lifestyle and Socioeconomic Transition and Health Consequences of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias in Global, from 1990 to 2019. Data-Driven Thresholding Statistically Biases ATN Profiling across Cohort Datasets. Modifiable Risk Factors for Accelerated Decline in Processing Speed: Results from Three Dutch Population Cohorts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1