Back

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.

2023-10-30 health informatics
10.1101/2023.10.27.23297685 medRxiv
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.

1
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.1%
2
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
52 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.3%
5
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
8
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
10
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
11
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
12
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
13
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
Annals of Neurology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
17
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
18
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
19
Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
20
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
21
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
22
Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%