Characterizing Treatment Non-responders vs. Responders in Completed Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trials
Wang, D.; Ling, Y.; Harris, K.; Schulz, P.; Jiang, X.; Kim, Y.
Show abstract
Alzheimers disease (AD) patients have varying responses to AD drugs and there may be no single treatment for all AD patients. Trial after trial shows that identifying non-responsive and responsive subgroups and their corresponding moderators will provide better insights into subject selection and interpretation in future clinical trials. We aim to extensively investigate pre-treatment features that moderate treatment effect of Galantamine, Bapineuzumab, and Semagacestat from completed trial data. We obtained individual-level patient data from ten randomized clinical trials. Six Galantamine trials and two Bapineuzumab trials were from Yale University Open Data Access Project and two Semagacestat trials were from the Center for Global Clinical Research Data. We included a total of 10,948 subjects. The trials were conducted worldwide from 2001 to 2012. We estimated treatment effect using causal forest modeling on each trial. Finally, we identified important pre-treatment features that determine treatment efficacy and identified responsive or nonresponsive subgroups. As a result, patients pre-treatment conditions that determined the treatment efficacy of Galantamine differed by dementia stages, but we consistently observed that non-responders in Galantamine trials had lower BMI (25 vs 28, P < .001) and increased ages (74 vs 68, P < .001). Responders in Bapineuzumab and Semagacestat trials had lower A{beta}42levels (6.41 vs 6.53 pg/ml, P < .001) and smaller whole brain volumes (983.13 vs 1052.78 ml, P < .001). 6 positive treatment trials had subsets of patients who had, in fact, not responded. 4 "negative" treatment trials had subsets of patients who had, in fact, responded. This study suggests that analyzing heterogeneity in treatment effects in "positive" or "negative" trials may be a very powerful tool for identifying distinct subgroups that are responsive to treatments, which may significantly benefit future clinical trial design and interpretation.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of Lecanemab and Donanemab in the Canadian Healthcare System: Evidence, Challenges, and Areas for Future Research 94%
- Using Machine Learning and Electronic Health Record (EHR) Data for the Early Prediction of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias 94%
- Real-world datasets for the International Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias (InRAD) and other registries: an international consensus 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Harnessing Greater Statistical Power: Comprehensive Evaluation of Disease Modifying Treatment Effects Across All or Multiple Post-Baseline Visits Compared to the Last Visit for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials 95%
- Quantitative longitudinal predictions of Alzheimer's disease by multi-modal predictive learning 93%
- Profiles of cognitive change in preclinical Alzheimer's disease using change-point analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- AlzGPS: A Genome-wide Positioning Systems Platform to Catalyze Multi-omics for Alzheimer's Therapeutic Discovery 93%
- Comparison and aggregation of event sequences across ten cohorts to describe the consensus biomarker evolution in Alzheimer’s disease 93%
- Machine learning applications in vascular neuroimaging for the diagnosis and prognosis of cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessing the transportability of clinical prediction models for cognitive impairment using causal models 95%
- Comparing randomized trial designs to estimate treatment effect in rare diseases with longitudinal models: a simulation study showcased by Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias using the SARA score 92%
- Prediction-powered Inference for Clinical Trials 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.