FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4376643564> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4376643564 abstract "The article entitled “Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials” was published in 2019 by Andrews et al. in Alzheimer's & Dementia.1 This study has emerged as perhaps the most influential investigation on the subject of minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in the key outcome measures used in therapeutic trials for Alzheimer's disease (AD). For example, Liu et al. used its results as the benchmarks against which they compared effect sizes for a range of AD trials: “for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease, differences of 0.98 and 1.63 points for clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes (CDR-SB)… represented clinically meaningful change.”2 More recently, in an editorial by Walsh et al., the same statistics were used to dismiss the clinical meaningfulness of the Clarity AD lecanemab results,3 which included therapeutic differences in CDR-SB of 0.35 and 0.62 in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, respectively.4 However, a close reading of the report of Andrews et al. reveals that its primary analyses are based on an erroneous assumption that renders its central results invalid.1 The authors estimated MCID for clinical outcomes using an anchor-based approach (clinician's assessment of meaningful decline). The study utilized the publicly available Uniform Data Set (UDS) from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC), which comprises data from 35 past and present Alzheimer's Disease Centers supported by the National Institute on Aging.5 The authors’ anchor-based analyses assume incorrectly that the clinician is evaluating decline relative to the previous visit. In fact, Question 3a in the relevant NACC UDS form (uds2-fvp-b9) asks “Relative to previously attained abilities: Does the clinician believe there has been a current meaningful decline in the subject's memory, non-memory cognitive abilities, behavior, or ability to manage his/her affairs, or have there been motor/movement changes?” The question is intended to differentiate an acquired cognitive disorder from lifelong impairment, for example, due to an intellectual developmental disorder. The clinician's assessment is, therefore, not concurrent with the measured changes in CDR-SB, and other clinical instruments, since the most recent visit. This faulty premise leads to the result that the vast majority of patients with MCI and nearly all with dementia are believed to exhibit meaningful decline at every visit: “When evaluated by disease severity, the proportions of visits with clinically meaningful decline increased with increase in disease severity: 16% of visits in the ‘normal’ cohort had clinically meaningful decline compared with 82% of visits in the MCI-AD cohort, 97% in the mild AD dementia cohort, and 99% visits in the moderate-severe AD dementia cohort.”1 It also leads to the conclusion that virtually all between-visit changes in CDR-SB and other instruments represent clinically important differences, and yields faulty estimates of MCID. In addition to the anchor-based analyses, the authors also include distribution-based methods. However, as they note, such analyses alone do not reference the clinical context, and are not generally recommended in the absence of anchor-based approaches.1, 6 Apart from this flawed assumption, a related problem with the analysis of Andrews et al. is that determination of meaningful decline is driven by the duration of the follow-up period in the NACC UDS (1 year). Because most participant visits in these categories are classified as showing meaningful decline, the CDR-SB values associated with this decline largely reflect the observed decline in this measure over 1 year: 0.98 in MCI and 1.63 in mild AD dementia.1 For example, if the follow-up period were instead 18 months, then declines of ≈50% more might be indicative of meaningful decline. In comparison, in the Clarity AD study of lecanemab (61.5% of participants with MCI, 38.5% with mild AD dementia), the placebo group showed a decline of 1.66 points in the CDR-SB over 18 months.3 By this standard then, a therapeutic agent would essentially need to halt progression to have a clinically meaningful effect. The authors should be commended for clarifying recently that their study was intended only to identify thresholds of meaningful within-patient progression and should not be used for determining meaningful group-level differences in clinical trials.7 However, they should still acknowledge their error, as it pertains to estimating meaningful within-patient decline. If longitudinal cohorts are to be utilized for evaluating clinically meaningful differences in the CDR-SB and other instruments used in AD trials, then—at a minimum—these should include dedicated judgments of clinically meaningful change that are fully independent of the specific instruments being evaluated, and they should also include shorter follow-up periods to establish the threshold of minimal differences. The authors have nothing to report. No funding was provided for this letter to the editor. C.H.v.D. has received compensation for consulting services from Eisai, Roche, Ono, and Cerevel and has received grant support for the conduct of multicenter therapeutic trials from Eli Lilly, Biogen, Roche, Genentech, UCB, Cerevel, and Biohaven. A.P.M. has received grant support for the conduct of multicenter therapeutic trials from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Roche, and Eisai. No conflict of interest is reported for R.S.O.Author disclosures are available in the supporting information. Consent was not necessary, since no human subjects were used for this letter to the editor. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article." @default.
• W4376643564 created "2023-05-17" @default.
• W4376643564 creator A5039290999 @default.
• W4376643564 creator A5081621207 @default.
• W4376643564 creator A5083197833 @default.
• W4376643564 date "2023-04-01" @default.
• W4376643564 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4376643564 title "Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials" @default.
• W4376643564 cites W2120439625 @default.
• W4376643564 cites W2965878453 @default.
• W4376643564 cites W3164682569 @default.
• W4376643564 cites W4310461604 @default.
• W4376643564 cites W4311894850 @default.
• W4376643564 cites W4319332993 @default.
• W4376643564 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12388" @default.
• W4376643564 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37187779" @default.
• W4376643564 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4376643564 type Work @default.
• W4376643564 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4376643564 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4376643564 hasAuthorship W4376643564A5039290999 @default.
• W4376643564 hasAuthorship W4376643564A5081621207 @default.
• W4376643564 hasAuthorship W4376643564A5083197833 @default.
• W4376643564 hasBestOaLocation W43766435641 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C111278954 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C2779483572 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C2780906993 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C502032728 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConcept C83849319 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C111278954 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C118552586 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C126322002 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C138496976 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C15744967 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C168563851 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C169900460 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C2779134260 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C2779483572 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C2780906993 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C502032728 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C535046627 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C70410870 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C71924100 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C74909509 @default.
• W4376643564 hasConceptScore W4376643564C83849319 @default.
• W4376643564 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W4376643564 hasLocation W43766435641 @default.
• W4376643564 hasLocation W43766435642 @default.
• W4376643564 hasOpenAccess W4376643564 @default.
• W4376643564 hasPrimaryLocation W43766435641 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W1975687619 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W1990077202 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W1992993692 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2007990932 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2030316944 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2075528565 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2279154019 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2397096486 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2472353213 @default.
• W4376643564 hasRelatedWork W2001921976 @default.
• W4376643564 hasVolume "9" @default.
• W4376643564 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4376643564 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4376643564 workType "article" @default.