Dataset Information

Effect of reductions in amyloid levels on cognitive change in randomized trials: instrumental variable meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate trials of drugs that target amyloid to determine whether reductions in amyloid levels are likely to improve cognition.

Design

Instrumental variable meta-analysis.

Setting

14 randomized controlled trials of drugs for the prevention or treatment of Alzheimer's disease that targeted an amyloid mechanism, identified from ClinicalTrials.gov.

Population

Adults enrolled in randomized controlled trials of amyloid targeting drugs. Inclusion criteria for trials vary, but typically include adults aged 50 years or older with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease, and amyloid positivity at baseline.

Main outcome measures

Analyses included trials for which information could be obtained on both change in brain amyloid levels measured with amyloid positron emission tomography and change in at least one cognitive test score reported for each randomization arm.

Results

Pooled results from the 14 randomized controlled trials were more precise than estimates from any single trial. The pooled estimate for the effect of reducing amyloid levels by 0.1 standardized uptake value ratio units was an improvement in the mini-mental state examination score of 0.03 (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.1) points. This study provides a web application that allows for the re-estimation of the results when new data become available and illustrates the magnitude of the new evidence that would be necessary to achieve a pooled estimate supporting the benefit of reducing amyloid levels.

Conclusions

Pooled evidence from available trials reporting both reduction in amyloid levels and change in cognition suggests that amyloid reduction strategies do not substantially improve cognition.

SUBMITTER: Ackley SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7905687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The 'Mendelian randomization' approach uses genotype as an instrumental variable to distinguish between causal and non-causal explanations of biomarker-disease associations. Classical methods for instrumental variable analysis are limited to linear or probit models without latent variables or missing data, rely on asymptotic approximations that are not valid for weak instruments and focus on estimation rather than hypothesis testing. We describe a Bayesian approach that overcomes these limitations, using the JAGS program to compute the log-likelihood ratio (lod score) between causal and non-causal explanations of a biomarker-disease association. To demonstrate the approach, we examined the relationship of plasma urate levels to metabolic syndrome in the ORCADES study of a Scottish population isolate, using genotype at six single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the urate transporter gene SLC2A9 as an instrumental variable. In models that allow for intra-individual variability in urate levels, the lod score favouring a non-causal over a causal explanation was 2.34. In models that do not allow for intra-individual variability, the weight of evidence against a causal explanation was weaker (lod score 1.38). We demonstrate the ability to test one of the key assumptions of instrumental variable analysis--that the effects of the instrument on outcome are mediated only through the intermediate variable--by constructing a test for residual effects of genotype on outcome, similar to the tests of 'overidentifying restrictions' developed for classical instrumental variable analysis. The Bayesian approach described here is flexible enough to deal with any instrumental variable problem, and does not rely on asymptotic approximations that may not be valid for weak instruments. The approach can easily be extended to combine information from different study designs. Statistical power calculations show that instrumental variable analysis with genetic instruments will typically require combining information from moderately large cohort and cross-sectional studies of biomarkers with information from very large genetic case-control studies.