Sensitivity of the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC), PACC5, and Repeatable Battery for Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) to Amyloid Status in Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease -Atabecestat Phase 2b/3 EARLY Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive composites commonly serve as primary outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD) secondary prevention trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between amyloid (Aβ) burden level (+/-) and performance on three separate composite endpoints: Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC), PACC+Semantic Fluency (PACC5), and Repeatable Battery for Neuropsychological Status (RBANS).

DESIGN

Screening data from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 atabecestat EARLY study in preclinical AD participants were used in this analysis.

SETTING

The EARLY study was conducted at 143 centers across 14 countries.

PARTICIPANTS

3,569 cognitively unimpaired older adults (Clinical Dementia Rating of 0; aged 60-85 years) screened for inclusion in the EARLY study with Aβ status and at least PACC or RBANS at screening were included. Participants were categorized as those with non-pathological Aβ levels (Aβ-, n=2,824) and those with pathological Aβ levels (Aβ+, n=745) based on florbetapir uptake or levels of cerebrospinal fluid Aβ1-42.

MEASUREMENTS

Analysis of Covariance models controlling for age, sex, and education were used to examine the difference in PACC, PACC5, and RBANS between Aβ groups. Nonparametric bootstrap was used to compare sensitivity of composites to differentiate between Aβ status.

RESULTS

Of 3,569 participants, 2,116 were women (59%); 3,006 were Caucasian (84%); mean (SD) age was 68.98 (5.28) years. Aβ+ participants performed worse versus Aβ- participants on all cognitive composites though the magnitude of the Aβ effect was generally small. The Aβ+/- effect size for the PACC (Cohen's d=-0.15) was significantly greater than the RBANS (d=-0.097) while the PACC5 effect size (d=-0.139) was numerically larger than the RBANS. When examining subscores from the composites, memory tests (i.e., Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, Figure Recall) and speed of processing (i.e., Digit-Symbol/Coding on the PACC/RBANS) exhibited the largest Aβ+/- effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-sectional relationships between Aβ and cognition among clinically unimpaired older adults are detectable on multi-domain cognitive composites but are relatively small in magnitude. The Aβ+/- group effect was statistically larger for PACC and marginally larger for PACC5 versus RBANS. However, interpretation of composite sensitivity to Aβ status cross-sectionally cannot be generalized to sensitivity to change over time.

U.S. POINTER: Lessons learned about delivery of a multi‐domain lifestyle intervention during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Background

U.S. POINTER is testing whether multidomain lifestyle interventions focused on physical exercise, nutrition, cognitive challenge, and risk factor management reduces risk of cognitive decline in a heterogeneous population of at‐risk older adults in America. The study adapts the FINGER (Finnish Intervention Geriatric Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability) interventions to fit the United States culture and delivers the intervention within the community at 5 sites across the country.

Method

U.S. POINTER is a 2‐year RCT that will enroll 2000 cognitively unimpaired older adults who are at risk for cognitive decline due sedentary lifestyle, poor diet and other factors. Participants are randomized to one of two lifestyle intervention groups that differ in format and intensity. In 2020, the COVID‐19 pandemic presented a number of challenges for the study that affected recruitment, assessment schedules, and intervention delivery.

Result

As of March 2020, when COVID‐19 incidence was on an exponential rise in the US, 240 participants had been enrolled in U.S. POINTER. In response to local and national safety mandates, study activities were paused from March 23^rd to July 13^th. During the pause, sites remained in contact with study candidates and enrolled participants to provide ongoing support to keep them engaged in the trial. Enrollees also received regular telephone calls to encourage continued adherence to their assigned lifestyle intervention. In response to the multiple pandemic‐related challenges, study protocols and procedures were adapted to facilitate and encourage participant adherence to intervention activities. At study re‐start, retention was 98%. Despite climbing COVID‐19 infection rates nationwide, enrollment at all 5 sites has continued at a steady rate (N=540 as of Jan2021), virtual Team Meeting attendance for both lifestyle groups exceeds 80%, and participants continue to successfully work toward their intervention goals.

Conclusion

The COVID‐19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges, but it also provided a unique opportunity to adapt intervention delivery so that a nonpharmacological community‐based trial could continue – even during a debilitating global health crisis. U.S. POINTER’s adaptations to pandemic‐related challenges may ultimately increase the resilience of its interventions to even the most challenging of circumstances that older adults will face now and in the future.

The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer's Disease Secondary Prevention Trial

BACKGROUND

Computerized cognitive assessments may improve Alzheimer's disease (AD) secondary prevention trial efficiency and accuracy. However, they require validation against standard outcomes and relevant biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and validity of the tablet-based Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of cognitive screening data from the A4 study (Anti-Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD).

SETTING

Multi-center international study.

PARTICIPANTS

Clinically normal (CN) older adults (65-85; n=4486).

MEASUREMENTS

Participants underwent florbetapir-Positron Emission Tomography for Aβ+/- classification. They completed the C3 and standard paper and pencil measures included in the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC). The C3 combines memory measures sensitive to change over time (Cogstate Brief Battery-One Card Learning) and measures shown to be declining early in AD including pattern separation (Behavioral Pattern Separation Test- Object- Lure Discrimination Index) and associative memory (Face Name Associative Memory Exam- Face-Name Matching). C3 acceptability and completion rates were assessed using qualitative and quantitative methods. C3 performance was explored in relation to Aβ+/- groups (n=1323/3163) and PACC.

RESULTS

C3 was feasible for CN older adults to complete. Rates of incomplete or invalid administrations were extremely low, even in the bottom quartile of cognitive performers (PACC). C3 was moderately correlated with PACC (r=0.39). Aβ+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aβ- [unadjusted Cohen's d=-0.22 (95%CI: -0.31,-0.13) p<0.001] and at a magnitude comparable to the PACC [d=-0.32 (95%CI: -0.41,-0.23) p<0.001]. Better C3 performance was observed in younger, more educated, and female participants.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide support for both the feasibility and validity of C3 and computerized cognitive outcomes more generally in AD secondary prevention trials.

The Impact of Awareness of and Concern About Memory Performance on the Prediction of Progression From Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer Disease Dementia

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship of awareness of and concern about memory performance to progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia.

METHODS

Participants (n = 33) had a diagnosis of MCI at baseline and a diagnosis of MCI or AD dementia at follow-up. Participants were categorized as "Stable-MCI" if they retained an MCI diagnosis at follow-up (mean follow-up = 18.0 months) or "Progressor-MCI" if they were diagnosed with AD dementia at follow-up (mean follow-up = 21.6 months). Awareness was measured using the residual from regressing a participant's objective memory score onto their subjective complaint score (i.e., residual<0 indicates overestimation of performance). Concern was assessed using a questionnaire examining the degree of concern when forgetting. Logistic regression was used to determine whether the presence of these syndromes could predict future diagnosis of AD dementia, and repeated measures analysis of covariance tests were used to examine longitudinal patterns of these syndromes.

RESULTS

Baseline anosognosia was apparent in the Progressor-MCI group, whereas participants in the Stable-MCI group demonstrated relative awareness of their memory performance. Baseline awareness scores successfully predicted whether an individual would progress to AD-dementia. Neither group showed change in awareness of performance over time. Neither group showed differences in concern about memory performance at baseline or change in concern about performance over time.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that anosognosia may appear prior to the onset of AD dementia, while anosodiaphoria likely does not appear until later in the AD continuum. Additionally, neither group showed significant changes in awareness or concern over time, suggesting that change in these variables may happen over longer periods.

Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries

BACKGROUND

As prevention trials for Alzheimer's disease move into asymptomatic populations, identifying older individuals who manifest the earliest cognitive signs of Alzheimer's disease is critical. Computerized cognitive testing has the potential to replace current gold standard paper and pencil measures and may be a more efficient means of assessing cognition. However, more empirical evidence about the comparability of novel computerized batteries to paper and pencil measures is required.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether two computerized IPad batteries, the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery and Cogstate-C3, similarly predict subtle cognitive impairment identified using the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC).

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

A pilot sample of 50 clinically normal older adults (Mage=68.5 years±7.6, 45% non-Caucasian) completed the PACC assessment, and the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate-C3 at research centers of Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospitals. Participants made 3-4 in-clinic visits, receiving the PACC first, then the NIH Toolbox, and finally the Cogstate-C3.>= 0.5SD), versus subtle cognitive impairment (<0.5SD). Composites for each computerized battery were created using principle components analysis, and compared with the PACC using non-parametric Spearman correlations. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine which composite was best able to classify subtle cognitive impairment from typical performance.

RESULTS

The NIH Toolbox formed one composite and exhibited the strongest within-battery alignment, while the Cogstate-C3 formed two distinct composites (Learning-Memory and Processing Speed-Attention). The NIH Toolbox and C3 Learning-Memory composites exhibited positive correlations with the PACC (ρ=0.49, p<0.001; ρ=0.58, p<0.001, respectively), but not the C3 Processing Speed-Attention composite, ρ=-0.18, p=0.22. The C3 Learning-Memory was the only composite that classified subtle cognitive impairment, and demonstrated the greatest sensitivity (62%) and specificity (81%) for that subtle cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. By contrast, Learning-Memory tasks within the Cogstate-C3 battery have the greatest potential to identify cross-sectional, subtle cognitive impairment as defined by the PACC.