Investigation of genetic determinants of cognitive change in later life

Cognitive decline is a major health concern and identification of genes that may serve as drug targets to slow decline is important to adequately support an aging population. Whilst genetic studies of cross-sectional cognition have been carried out, cognitive change is less well-understood. Here, using data from the TOMMORROW trial, we investigate genetic associations with cognitive change in a cognitively normal older cohort. We conducted a genome-wide association study of trajectories of repeated cognitive measures (using generalised estimating equation (GEE) modelling) and tested associations with polygenic risk scores (PRS) of potential risk factors. We identified two genetic variants associated with change in attention domain scores, rs534221751 (p = 1 × 10-8 with slope 1) and rs34743896 (p = 5 × 10-10 with slope 2), implicating NCAM2 and CRIPT/ATP6V1E2 genes, respectively. We also found evidence for the association between an education PRS and baseline cognition (at >65 years of age), particularly in the language domain. We demonstrate the feasibility of conducting GWAS of cognitive change using GEE modelling and our results suggest that there may be novel genetic associations for cognitive change that have not previously been associated with cross-sectional cognition. We also show the importance of the education PRS on cognition much later in life. These findings warrant further investigation and demonstrate the potential value of using trial data and trajectory modelling to identify genetic variants associated with cognitive change.

Adjudicating Mild Cognitive Impairment Due to Alzheimer's Disease as a Novel Endpoint Event in the TOMMORROW Prevention Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an essential outcome in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention trials and a compelling milestone for clinically meaningful change. Determining MCI, however, may be variable and subject to disagreement. Adjudication procedures may improve the reliability of these determinations. We report the performance of an adjudication committee for an AD prevention trial.

METHODS

The TOMMORROW prevention trial selected cognitively normal participants at increased genetic risk for AD and randomized them to low-dose pioglitazone or placebo treatment. When adjudication criteria were triggered, a participant's clinical information was randomly assigned to a three-member panel of a six-member independent adjudication committee. Determination of whether or not a participant reached MCI due to AD or AD dementia proceeded through up to three review stages - independent review, collaborative review, and full committee review - requiring a unanimous decision and ratification by the chair.

RESULTS

Of 3494 participants randomized, the committee adjudicated on 648 cases from 386 participants, resulting in 96 primary endpoint events. Most participants had cases that were adjudicated once (n = 235, 60.9%); the rest had cases that were adjudicated multiple times. Cases were evenly distributed among the eight possible three-member panels. Most adjudicated cases (485/648, 74.8%) were decided within the independent review (stage 1); 14.0% required broader collaborative review (stage 2), and 11.1% needed full committee discussion (stage 3). The primary endpoint event decision rate was 39/485 (8.0%) for stage 1, 29/91 (31.9%) for stage 2, and 28/72 (38.9%) for stage 3. Agreement between the primary event outcomes supported by investigators' clinical diagnoses and the decisions of the adjudication committee increased from 50% to approximately 93% (after around 100 cases) before settling at 80-90% for the remainder of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjudication process was designed to provide independent, consistent determinations of the trial endpoints. These outcomes demonstrated the extent of uncertainty among trial investigators and agreement between adjudicators when the transition to MCI due to AD was prospectively assessed. These methods may inform clinical endpoint determination in future AD secondary prevention studies. Reliable, accurate assessment of clinical events is critical for prevention trials and may mean the difference between success and failure.

Safety and efficacy of pioglitazone for the delay of cognitive impairment in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease (TOMMORROW): a prognostic biomarker study and a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The identification of people at risk of cognitive impairment is essential for improving recruitment in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to test and qualify a biomarker risk assignment algorithm (BRAA) to identify participants at risk of developing mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease within 5 years, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose pioglitazone to delay onset of mild cognitive impairment in these at-risk participants.

METHODS

In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, we enrolled cognitively healthy, community living participants aged 65-83 years from 57 academic affiliated and private research clinics in Australia, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. By use of the BRAA, participants were grouped as high risk or low risk. Participants at high risk were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral pioglitazone (0·8 mg/day sustained release) or placebo, and all low-risk participants received placebo. Study investigators, site staff, sponsor personnel, and study participants were masked to genotype, risk assignment, and treatment assignment. The planned study duration was the time to accumulate 202 events of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease in White participants who were at high risk (the population on whom the genetic analyses that informed the BRAA development was done). Primary endpoints were time-to-event comparisons between participants at high risk and low risk given placebo (for the BRAA objective), and between participants at high risk given pioglitazone or placebo (for the efficacy objective). The primary analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned, received at least one dose of study drug, and had at least one valid post-baseline visit, with significance set at p=0·01. The safety analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study medication. An efficacy futility analysis was planned for when approximately 33% of the anticipated events occurred in the high-risk, White, non-Hispanic or Latino group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01931566.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 28, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we enrolled 3494 participants (3061 at high risk and 433 at low risk). Of those participants, 1545 were randomly assigned to pioglitazone and 1516 to placebo. 1104 participants discontinued treatment (464 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 501 in the placebo high risk group, and 139 in the placebo low risk group). 3399 participants had at least one dose of study drug or placebo and at least one post-baseline follow-up visit, and were included in the efficacy analysis. 3465 participants were included in the safety analysis (1531 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 1507 in the placebo high risk group, and 427 in the placebo low risk group). In the full analysis set, 46 (3·3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease, versus four (1·0%) of 402 participants at low risk given placebo (hazard ratio 3·26, 99% CI 0·85-12·45; p=0·023). 39 (2·7%) of 1430 participants at high risk given pioglitazone had mild cognitive impairment, versus 46 (3·3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo (hazard ratio 0·80, 99% CI 0·45-1·40; p=0·307). In the safety analysis set, seven (0·5%) of 1531 participants at high risk given pioglitazone died versus 21 (1·4%) of 1507 participants at high risk given placebo. There were no other notable differences in adverse events between groups. The study was terminated in January, 2018, after failing to meet the non-futility threshold.

INTERPRETATION

Pioglitazone did not delay the onset of mild cognitive impairment. The biomarker algorithm demonstrated a 3 times enrichment of events in the high risk placebo group compared with the low risk placebo group, but did not reach the pre-specified significance threshold. Because we did not complete the study as planned, findings can only be considered exploratory. The conduct of this study could prove useful to future clinical development strategies for Alzheimer's disease prevention studies.

FUNDING

Takeda and Zinfandel.

The TOMMORROW study: Design of an Alzheimer's disease delay-of-onset clinical trial

Introduction

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a continuum with neuropathologies manifesting years before clinical symptoms; thus, AD research is attempting to identify more disease-modifying approaches to test treatments administered before full disease expression. Designing such trials in cognitively normal elderly individuals poses unique challenges.

Methods

The TOMMORROW study was a phase 3 double-blind, parallel-group study designed to support qualification of a novel genetic biomarker risk assignment algorithm (BRAA) and to assess efficacy and safety of low-dose pioglitazone to delay onset of mild cognitive impairment due to AD. Eligible participants were stratified based on the BRAA (using TOMM40 rs 10524523 genotype, Apolipoprotein E genotype, and age), with high-risk individuals receiving low-dose pioglitazone or placebo and low-risk individuals receiving placebo. The primary endpoint was time to the event of mild cognitive impairment due to AD. The primary objectives were to compare the primary endpoint between high- and low-risk placebo groups (for BRAA qualification) and between high-risk pioglitazone and high-risk placebo groups (for pioglitazone efficacy). Approximately 300 individuals were also asked to participate in a volumetric magnetic resonance imaging substudy at selected sites.

Results

The focus of this paper is on the design of the study; study results will be presented in a separate paper.

Discussion

The design of the TOMMORROW study addressed many key challenges to conducting a dual-objective phase 3 pivotal AD clinical trial in presymptomatic individuals. Experiences from planning and executing the TOMMORROW study may benefit future AD prevention/delay-of-onset trials.