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 (Aß) 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 Aß status and at least PACC or RBANS at screening were included. Participants were categorized as those with non-pathological Aß levels (Aß-, n=2,824) and those with pathological Aß levels (Aß+, n=745) based on florbetapir uptake or levels of cerebrospinal fluid Aß1-42. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of Covariance models controlling for age, sex, and education were used to examine the difference in PACC, PACC5, and RBANS between Aß groups. Nonparametric bootstrap was used to compare sensitivity of composites to differentiate between Aß 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. Aß+ participants performed worse versus Aß- participants on all cognitive composites though the magnitude of the Aß effect was generally small. The Aß+/- 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 Aß+/- effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectional relationships between Aß and cognition among clinically unimpaired older adults are detectable on multi-domain cognitive composites but are relatively small in magnitude. The Aß+/- group effect was statistically larger for PACC and marginally larger for PACC5 versus RBANS. However, interpretation of composite sensitivity to Aß status cross-sectionally cannot be generalized to sensitivity to change over time.

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 Aß+/- 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 Aß+/- 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). Aß+ performed worse on C3 compared with Aß- [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.

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.