MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306663551 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3392

Association of Donanemab Treatment With Exploratory Plasma Biomarkers in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease

2022· article· en· W4306663551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Pontecorvo, Ming Lu, Samantha C. Burnham, Andrew E. Schade, Jeffrey L. Dage, Sergey Shcherbinin, Emily C. Collins, John R. Sims, Mark A. Mintun

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Neurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAlzheimer's disease research and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboBiomarkerInternal medicineGlial fibrillary acidic proteinAlzheimer's diseaseMedicineRandomized controlled trialPost-hoc analysisDiseaseGastroenterologyOncologyPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer disease may be useful as minimally invasive pharmacodynamic measures of treatment outcomes. Objective: To analyze the association of donanemab treatment with plasma biomarkers associated with Alzheimer disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRAILBLAZER-ALZ was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted from December 18, 2017, to December 4, 2020, across 56 sites in the US and Canada. Exploratory biomarkers were prespecified with the post hoc addition of plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein and amyloid-β. Men and women aged 60 to 85 years with gradual and progressive change in memory function for at least 6 months were included. A total of 1955 participants were assessed for eligibility. Key eligibility criteria include Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 20 to 28 and elevated amyloid and intermediate tau levels. Interventions: Randomized participants received donanemab or placebo every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks. The first 3 doses of donanemab were given at 700 mg and then increased to 1400 mg with blinded dose reductions as specified based on amyloid reduction. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in plasma biomarker levels after donanemab treatment. Results: In TRAILBLAZER-ALZ, 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 [53.3%] female) were randomized. Plasma levels of phosphorylated tau217 (pTau217) and glial fibrillary acidic protein were significantly lower with donanemab treatment compared with placebo as early as 12 weeks after the start of treatment (least square mean change difference vs placebo, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02]; P = .002 and -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]; P = .01, respectively). No significant differences in plasma levels of amyloid-β 42/40 and neurofilament light chain were observed between treatment arms at the end of treatment. Changes in plasma pTau217 and glial fibrillary acidic protein were significantly correlated with the Centiloid percent change in amyloid (Spearman rank correlation coefficient [R] = 0.484 [95% CI, 0.359-0.592]; P < .001 and R = 0.453 [95% CI, 0.306-0.579]; P < .001, respectively) following treatment. Additionally, plasma levels of pTau217 and glial fibrillary acidic protein were significantly correlated at baseline and following treatment (R = 0.399 [95% CI, 0.278-0.508], P < .001 and R = 0.393 [95% CI, 0.254-0.517]; P < .001, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant reductions in plasma biomarkers pTau217 and glial fibrillary acidic protein compared with placebo were observed following donanemab treatment in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease. These easily accessible plasma biomarkers might provide additional evidence of Alzheimer disease pathology change through anti-amyloid therapy. Usefulness in assessing treatment response will require further evaluation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03367403.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations246
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA NeurologySame topicAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207