Zhou, Y. Choice of designs and doses for early phase trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2004; 18: 373–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lindstrom-Gommers, L, Mullin, T. International Conference on Harmonization: recent reforms as a driver of global regulatory harmonization and innovation in medical products. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019; 105: 926–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nair, AB, Jacob, S. A simple practice guide for dose conversion between animals and humans. J Basic Clin Pharm 2016; 7: 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muller, PY, Milton, M, Lloyd, P, Sims, J, Brennan, FR. The minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL) for selection of first human dose in clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2009; 20: 722–9.Google Scholar

Agoram, BM. Use of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling for starting dose selection in first-in-human trials of high-risk biologics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67: 153–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wheeler, GM, Mander, AP, Bedding, A, et al. How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19: 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dekker, M, Bouvy, JC, O’Rourke, D, et al. Alignment of European regulatory and health technology assessments: a review of licensed products for Alzheimer’s disease. Front Med (Lausanne) 2019; 6: 73.Google Scholar

Jaki, T, Clive, S, Weir, CJ. Principles of dose finding studies in cancer: a comparison of trial designs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013; 71: 1107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Algorta, J, Pena, MA, Maraschiello, C, et al. Phase I clinical trial with desoxypeganine, a new cholinesterase and selective MAO-A inhibitor: tolerance and pharmacokinetics study of escalating single oral doses. Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2008; 30: 141–7.Google Scholar

Schneider, LS, Geffen, Y, Rabinowitz, J, et al. Low-dose ladostigil for mild cognitive impairment: a Phase 2 placebo-controlled clinical trial. Neurology 2019; 93: e1474–84.Google Scholar

Ivanova, A, Murphy, M. An adaptive first in man dose-escalation study of NGX267: statistical, clinical, and operational considerations. J Biopharm Stat 2009; 19: 247–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kutzsche, J, Jurgens, D, Willuweit, A, et al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of the orally available antiprionic compound PRI-002: a single and multiple ascending dose phase I study. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12001.Google Scholar

Grundman, M, Morgan, R, Lickliter, JD, et al. A Phase 1 clinical trial of the sigma-2 receptor complex allosteric antagonist CT1812, a novel therapeutic candidate for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 20–6.Google ScholarPubMed

Ahn, JE, Carrieri, C, Dela Cruz, F, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of a gamma-secretase modulator, PF-06648671, on CSF amyloid-beta peptides in randomized Phase I studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020; 107: 211–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ye, N, Monk, SA, Daga, P, et al. Clinical bioavailability of the novel BACE1 inhibitor lanabecestat (AZD3293): assessment of tablet formulations versus an oral solution and the impact of gastric pH on pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2018; 7: 233–43.Google Scholar

Ferrero, J, Williams, L, Stella, H, et al. First-in-human, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose escalation study of aducanumab (BIIB037) in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2016; 2: 169–76.Google Scholar

Lues, I, Weber, F, Meyer, A, et al. A Phase 1 study to evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of PQ912, a glutaminyl cyclase inhibitor, in healthy subjects. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2015; 1: 182–95.Google ScholarPubMed

Kerbrat, A, Ferre, JC, Fillatre, P, et al. Acute neurologic disorder from an inhibitor of fatty acid amide hydrolase. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1717–25.Google Scholar

Cutler, NR, Jhee, SS, Cyrus, P, et al. Safety and tolerability of metrifonate in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: results of a maximum tolerated dose study. Life Sci 1998; 62: 1433–41.Google Scholar

Lopez-Arrieta, JM, Schneider, L. Metrifonate for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 2: CD003155.Google Scholar

Sramek, JJ, Block, GA, Reines, SA, et al. A multiple-dose safety trial of eptastigmine in Alzheimer’s disease, with pharmacodynamic observations of red blood cell cholinesterase. Life Sci 1995; 56: 319–26.Google ScholarPubMed

Moss, DE, Fariello, RG, Sahlmann, J, et al. A randomized Phase I study of methanesulfonyl fluoride, an irreversible cholinesterase inhibitor, for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 75: 1231–9.Google Scholar

Jia, JY, Zhao, QH, Liu, Y, et al. Phase I study on the pharmacokinetics and tolerance of ZT-1, a prodrug of huperzine A, for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2013; 34: 976–82.Google Scholar

Patat, A, Parks, V, Raje, S, et al. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ascending single and multiple doses of lecozotan in healthy young and elderly subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 67: 299–308.Google Scholar

Nirogi, R, Mudigonda, K, Bhyrapuneni, G, et al. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of the serotonin 5-HT6 receptor antagonist, SUVN-502, in healthy young adults and elderly subjects. Clin Drug Investig 2018; 38: 401–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Othman, AA, Haig, G, Florian, H, et al. Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of the histamine H3 receptor antagonist, ABT-288, in healthy young adults and elderly volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 75: 1299–311.Google Scholar

Hey, JA, Yu, JY, Versavel, M, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics and safety of ALZ-801, a novel prodrug of tramiprosate in development for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Pharmacokinet 2018; 57: 315–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cebers, G, Alexander, RC, Haeberlein, SB, et al. AZD3293: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in healthy subjects and patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2017; 55: 1039–53.Google Scholar

Brazier, D, Perry, R, Keane, J, Barrett, K, Elmaleh, DR. Pharmacokinetics of cromolyn and ibuprofen in healthy elderly volunteers. Clin Drug Investig 2017; 37: 1025–34.Google Scholar

Sevigny, J, Chiao, P, Bussiere, T, et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Abeta plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2016; 537: 50–6.Google Scholar

Novak, P, Schmidt, R, Kontsekova, E, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of the tau vaccine AADvac1 in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16: 123–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Novak, P, Schmidt, R, Kontsekova, E, et al. FUNDAMANT: an interventional 72-week phase 1 follow-up study of AADvac1, an active immunotherapy against tau protein pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Karch, FE, Lasagna, L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1977; 21: 247–54.Google Scholar

Timmers, M, Sinha, V, Darpo, B, et al. Evaluating potential QT effects of JNJ-54861911, a BACE inhibitor in single- and multiple-ascending dose studies, and a thorough QT trial with additional retrospective confirmation, using concentration-QTc analysis. J Clin Pharmacol 2018; 58: 952–64.Google Scholar

Laczo, J, Markova, H, Lobellova, V, et al. Scopolamine disrupts place navigation in rats and humans: a translational validation of the Hidden Goal Task in the Morris water maze and a real maze for humans. Psychopharmacology (Ber) 2017; 234: 535–47.Google Scholar

Jobert, M, Wilson, FJ, Ruigt, GS, et al. Guidelines for the recording and evaluation of pharmaco-EEG data in man: the International Pharmaco-EEG Society (IPEG). Neuropsychobiology 2012; 66: 201–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tsolaki, A, Kazis, D, Kompatsiaris, I, Kosmidou, V, Tsolaki, M. Electroencephalogram and Alzheimer’s disease: clinical and research approaches. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2014; 2014: 349249.Google Scholar

Liem-Moolenaar, M, de Boer, P, Timmers, M, et al. Pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic relationships of central nervous system effects of scopolamine in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 71: 886–98.Google Scholar

Ebert, U, Kirch, W. Scopolamine model of dementia: electroencephalogram findings and cognitive performance. Eur J Clin Invest 1998; 28: 944–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Adler, G, Brassen, S. Short-term rivastigmine treatment reduces EEG slow-wave power in Alzheimer patients. Neuropsychobiology 2001; 43: 273–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Adler, G, Brassen, S, Chwalek, K, Dieter, B, Teufel, M. Prediction of treatment response to rivastigmine in Alzheimer’s dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 292–4.Google ScholarPubMed

Balsters, JH, O’Connell, RG, Martin, MP, et al. Donepezil impairs memory in healthy older subjects: behavioural, EEG and simultaneous EEG/fMRI biomarkers. PLoS One 2011; 6: e24126.Google Scholar

Uslaner, JM, Kuduk, SD, Wittmann, M, et al. Preclinical to human translational pharmacology of the novel M1 positive allosteric modulator MK-7622. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2018; 365: 556–66.Google Scholar

Smailovic, U, Koenig, T, Kareholt, I, et al. Quantitative EEG power and synchronization correlate with Alzheimer’s disease CSF biomarkers. Neurobiol Aging 2018; 63: 88–95.Google Scholar

Simpraga, S, Alvarez-Jimenez, R, Mansvelder, HD, et al. EEG machine learning for accurate detection of cholinergic intervention and Alzheimer’s disease. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 5775.Google Scholar

Van Broeck, B, Timmers, M, Ramael, S, et al. Impact of frequent cerebrospinal fluid sampling on Abeta levels: systematic approach to elucidate influencing factors. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8: 21.Google Scholar

Blass, BE. Basic Principles of Drug Discovery and Development. Boston, MA: Academic Press; 2015.Google Scholar

Yuan, J, Pang, H, Tong, T, et al. Seamless Phase IIa/IIb and enhanced dose-finding adaptive design. J Biopharm Stat 2016; 26: 912–23.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Ritter, A, Zhong, K. Clinical trials for disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a primer, lessons learned, and a blueprint for the future. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 64: S3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jack, CR Jr., Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, et al. NIA–AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 535–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cummings, J, Feldman, HH, Scheltens, P. The “rights” of precision drug development for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 76.Google Scholar

Bauer, P, Kieser, M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1833–48.Google Scholar

Scheltens, P, De Strooper, B, Kivipelto, M, et al. Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 2021; 397: 1577–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Molinuevo, JL, Ayton, S, Batrla, R, et al. Current state of Alzheimer’s fluid biomarkers. Acta Neuropathol 2018; 136: 821–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association. International Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research Portfolio: Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research Ontology (CADRO). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2020.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Lee, G, Ritter, A, Sabbagh, M, Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug development pipeline: 2020. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12050.Google Scholar

de Wilde, A, Reimand, J, Teunissen, CE, et al. Discordant amyloid-β PET and CSF biomarkers and its clinical consequences. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 78–84.Google Scholar

Reimand, J, Boon, BDC, Collij, LE, et al. Amyloid-β PET and CSF in an autopsy-confirmed cohort. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2020; 7: 2150–60.Google Scholar

Sevigny, J, Chiao, P, Bussière, T, et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2016; 537: 50–6.Google Scholar

Golla, SS, Wolters, EE, Timmers, T, et al. Parametric methods for ¹⁸[F]flortaucipir PET. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40: 365–73.Google Scholar

Wolters, EE, Ossenkoppele, R, Verfaillie, SCJ, et al. Regional ¹⁸[F]flortaucipir PET is more closely associated with disease severity than CSF p-tau in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 47: 2866–78.Google Scholar

Scheltens, NME, Briels, CT, Yaqub, M, et al. Exploring effects of souvenaid on cerebral glucose metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 492–500.Google Scholar

Soininen, H, Solomon, A, Visser, PJ, et al. 36-month LipiDiDiet multinutrient clinical trial in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2021; 17: 29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bennet, CF, Krainer, AR, Cleveland, DW. Antisense oligonucleotide therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Annu Rev Neurosci 2019; 42: 385–406.Google Scholar

Babiloni, C, Blinowska, K, Bonanni, L, et al. What electrophysiology tells us about Alzheimer’s disease: a window into the synchronization and connectivity of brain neurons. Neurobiol Aging 2020; 85: 58–73.Google Scholar

Busche, MA, Chen, X, Henning, AH, et al. Critical role of soluble amyloid-β for early hippocampal hyperactivity in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 8740–5.Google Scholar

Palop, JJ, Mucke, L. Network abnormalities and interneuron dysfunction in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016; 17: 777–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Engels, M, Hillebrand, A, van der Flier, WM, et al. Slowing of hippocampal activity correlates with cognitive decline in early onset Alzheimer’s disease. An MEG study with virtual electrodes. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 238.Google Scholar

van Straaten, EC, Scheltens, P, Gouw, AA, Stam, CJ. Eyes-closed task-free electroencephalography in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease: an emerging method based upon brain dynamics. Alzheimers Res Ther 2014; 6: 86–92.Google Scholar

Gouw, AA, Alsema, AM, Tijms, BM, et al. EEG spectral analysis as a putative early prognostic biomarker in nondemented, amyloid positive subjects. Neurobiol Aging 2017; 57: 133–42.Google Scholar

Rossini, PM, Di Iorio, R, Vecchio, F, et al. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: the role of biomarkers including advanced EEG signal analysis. Report from the IFCN-sponsored panel of experts. Clin Neurophysiol 2020; 131: 1287–310.Google Scholar

Scheltens, P, Hallikainen, M, Grimmer, T, et al. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of the glutaminyl cyclase inhibitor PQ912 in Alzheimer’s disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 107–12.Google Scholar

Briels, CT, Stam, CJ, Scheltens, P, et al. In pursuit of a sensitive EEG functional connectivity outcome measure for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Neurophysiol 2020; 131: 88–95.Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 2018.Google Scholar

Prinsen, CA, Vohra, S, Rose, MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set”: a practical guideline. Trials 2016; 17: 449.Google Scholar

Jutten, RJ, Sikkes, SAM, Amariglio, RE, et al. Identifying sensitive measures of cognitive decline at different clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2020; 27: 1–13.Google Scholar

Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.Google Scholar

Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google Scholar

Galasko, D, Bennett, D, Sano, M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S33–9.Google Scholar

Guy, W. Clinical Global Impressions. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology – Revised. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976: 218–22.Google Scholar

Williams, MM, Storandt, M, Roe, CM, Morris, JC. Progression of Alzheimer’s disease as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9: S39–44.Google Scholar

Evans, S, McRae-McKee, K, Wong, MM, et al. The importance of endpoint selection: How effective does a drug need to be for success in a clinical trial of a possible Alzheimer’s disease treatment? Eur J Epidemiol 2018; 33: 635–44.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Sperling, RA, Salmon, DP, et al. The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol 2014; 71: 961–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Langbaum, JB, Hendrix, SB, Ayutyanont, N, et al. An empirically derived composite cognitive test score with improved power to track and evaluate treatments for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2014; 10: 666–74.Google Scholar

Wang, J, Logovinsky, V, Hendrix, SB, et al. ADCOMS: a composite clinical outcome for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016; 87: 993–9.Google Scholar

Jutten, RJ, Harrison, JE, Brunner, AJ, et al. The cognitive-functional composite is sensitive to clinical progression in early dementia: longitudinal findings from the Catch-Cog study cohort. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12020.Google Scholar

Reimers, S, Stewart, N. Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flash and HTML5/JavaScript web experiments. Behav Res Methods 2015; 47: 309–27.Google Scholar

Bilder, RM, Reise, SP. Neuropsychological tests of the future: how do we get there from here? Clin Neuropsychologist 2019; 33: 220–45.Google Scholar

Sikkes, SA, Knol, DL, Pijnenburg, YA, et al. Validation of the Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire©, a new tool to measure instrumental activities of daily living in dementia. Neuroepidemiology 2013; 41: 35–41.Google Scholar

Gold, M, Amatniek, J, Carrillo, MC, et al. Digital technologies as biomarkers, clinical outcomes assessment, and recruitment tools in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2018; 4: 234–42.Google Scholar

Buckley, RF, Sparks, KP, Papp, KV, et al. Computerized cognitive testing for use in clinical trials: a comparison of the NIH toolbox and Cogstate C3 batteries. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2017; 4: 3–11.Google Scholar

Rentz, DM, Dekhtyar, M, Sherman, J, et al. The feasibility of at-home iPad cognitive testing for use in clinical trials. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2016; 3: 8–12.Google Scholar

Koo, BM, Vizer, LM. Mobile technology for cognitive assessment of older adults: a scoping review. Innov Aging 2019; 3: igy038.Google Scholar

Sliwinski, MJ, Mogle, JA, Hyun, J, et al. Reliability and validity of ambulatory cognitive assessments. Assessment 2018; 25: 14–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gray, JA, Fleet, D, Winblad, B. The need for thorough Phase II studies in medicines development for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2015; 7: 67.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Morstorf, T, Lee, G. Alzheimer’s drug-development pipeline: 2016. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2016; 2: 222–32.Google Scholar

Cole, MA, Seabrook, GR. On the horizon: the value and promise of the global pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: 1–9.Google Scholar

Sabbagh, M, Hendrix, S, Harrison, JE. FDA position statement “early Alzheimer disease: developing drugs for treatment, guidance for industry”. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 13–19.Google Scholar

Siemers, E. Drug development in AD: point of view from the industry. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2015; 2: 216–18.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Ritter, A, Zhong, K. Clinical trials for disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a primer, lessons learned, and a blueprint for the future. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 64: S3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rinaldi, A. Setbacks and promises for drugs against Alzheimer’s disease: as pharmaceutical companies are retreating from drug development for Alzheimer’s, new approaches are being tested in academia and biotech companies. EMBO Rep 2018; 19: e46714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Biogen. Biogen plans regulatory filing for aducanumab in Alzheimer’s disease based on new analysis of larger dataset from Phase 3 studies. Investor Relations 2019; Oct. 22. Available at: https://investors.biogen.com/news-releases/news-release-details/biogen-plans-regulatory-filing-aducanumab-alzheimers-disease (accessed January 2021).Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. FDA’s decision to approve new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. Available at: www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/fdas-decision-approve-new-treatment-alzheimers-disease (accessed June 2021).Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 2018.Google Scholar

European Medicines Agency. Clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: CPMP/EWP/553/1995. Available at: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicines-treatment-alzheimers-disease-revision-2_en.pdf (accessed January 2021).Google Scholar

Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Project to promote the development of innovative pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and regenerative medical products (Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare) regulatory science research for the establishment of criteria for clinical evaluation of drugs for Alzheimer’s disease. Available at: www.pmda.go.jp/files/000221585.pdf (accessed January 2021).Google Scholar

Morant, AV, Vestergaard, HT, Lassen, AB, Navikas, V. US, EU, and Japanese regulatory guidelines for development of drugs for treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: implications for global drug development. Clin Transl Sci 2020; 13: 652–64.Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. Expedited programs for serious conditions: drugs and biologics, May 2014. Available at: www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/expedited-programs-serious-conditions-drugs-and-biologics (accessed June 2021).Google Scholar

Food and Drug Administration. Summary memorandum. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2021/Aducanumab_BLA761178_Dunn_2021_06_07.pdf (accessed June 2021).Google Scholar

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Decision memo for beta amyloid positron emission tomography in dementia and neurodegenerative disease (CAG-00431N). Available at: www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/nca-decision-memo.aspx?NCAId=265 (accessed January 2021).Google Scholar

Oxford, AE, Stewart, ES, Rohn, TT. Clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a hurdle in the path of remedy. Int J Alzheimers Dis 2020; 2020: 5380346.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Lee, G, Ritter, A, Sabbagh, M, Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: 2020. Alzheimer Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12050.Google Scholar

Alzheimer’s Association. 2020 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 391–460.Google Scholar

Morris, J. Clinical Dementia Rating: a reliable and valid diagnostic and staging measure for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Int Psychogeriatr 1997; 9: 173–6.Google Scholar

Schneider, LS, Olin, JT, Doody, RS, et al. Validity and reliability of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S22–32.Google Scholar

Reisberg, B, Ferris, SH, de Leon, MJ, Crook, T. The global deterioration scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry 1982; 139: 1135–9.Google Scholar

Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google Scholar

Monsch, AU, Bondi, MW, Salmon, DP, et al. Clinical validity of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in detecting dementia of the Alzheimer type. A double cross-validation and application to a community-dwelling sample. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 899–904.Google Scholar

Panisset, M, Roudier, M, Saxton, J, Boller, F. Severe Impairment Battery. A neuropsychological test for severely demented patients. Arch Neurol 1994; 51: 41–5.Google Scholar

Summers, WK, Majovski, LV, Marsh, GM, Tachiki, K, Kling, A. Oral tetrahydroaminoacridine in long-term treatment of senile dementia, Alzheimer type. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1241–5.Google Scholar

Davis, KL, Thal, LJ, Gamzu, ER, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study of tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease. The Tacrine Collaborative Study Group. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1253–9.Google Scholar

Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google Scholar

Thal, LJ. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study in 2004. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2004; 18: 183–5.Google Scholar

Sano, M, Ernesto, C, Thomas, RG, et al. A controlled trial of selegiline, alpha-tocopherol, or both as treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1216–22.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Schneider, LS, Sano, M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008; 300: 1774–83.Google Scholar

Galasko, DR, Peskind, E, Clark, CM, et al. Antioxidants for Alzheimer disease: a randomized clinical trial with cerebrospinal fluid biomarker measures. Arch Neurol 2012; 69: 836–41.Google Scholar

Petersen, RC, Thomas, RG, Grundman, M, et al. Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2379–88.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Davis, KL, Berg, JD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of prednisone in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Neurology 2000; 54: 588–93.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Schafer, KA, Grundman, M, et al. Effects of rofecoxib or naproxen vs placebo on Alzheimer disease progression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 289: 2819–26.Google Scholar

Mulnard, RA, Cotman, CW, Kawas, C, et al. Estrogen replacement therapy for treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. JAMA 2000; 283: 1007–15.Google Scholar

Sano, M, Bell, KL, Galasko, D, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of simvastatin to treat Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2011; 77: 556–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Teri, L, Logsdon, RG, Peskind, E, et al. Treatment of agitation in AD: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Neurology 2000; 55: 1271–8.Google Scholar

Grundman, M, Farlow, M, Peavy, G, et al. A phase I study of AIT-082 in healthy elderly volunteers. J Mol Neurosci 2002; 18: 283–93.Google Scholar

Petersen, RC, Aisen, PS, Beckett, LA, et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI): clinical characterization. Neurology 2010; 74: 201–9.Google Scholar

Weninger, S, Carrillo, MC, Dunn, B, et al. Collaboration for Alzheimer’s Prevention: principles to guide data and sample sharing in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement 2016; 12: 631–2.Google Scholar

Vellas, B, Carrillo, MC, Sampaio, C, et al. Designing drug trials for Alzheimer’s disease: what we have learned from the release of the Phase III antibody trials: a report from the EU/US/CTAD Task Force. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9: 438–44.Google Scholar

Sperling, RA, Donohue, MC, Raman, R, et al. Association of factors with elevated amyloid burden in clinically normal older individuals. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 735–45.Google Scholar

Sperling, RA, Rentz, DM, Johnson, KA, et al. The A4 study: stopping AD before symptoms begin? Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 228fs13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Donohue, MC, Sperling, RA, Petersen, R, et al. Association between elevated brain amyloid and subsequent cognitive decline among cognitively normal persons. JAMA 2017; 317: 2305–16.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Sperling, RA, Salmon, DP, et al. The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol 2014; 71: 961–70.Google Scholar

Siemers, ER, Sundell, KL, Carlson, C, et al. Phase 3 solanezumab trials: secondary outcomes in mild Alzheimer’s disease patients. Alzheimers Dement 2016; 12: 110–20.Google Scholar

Doody, RS, Thomas, RG, Farlow, M, et al. Phase 3 trials of solanezumab for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 311–21.Google Scholar

Weiner, MW, Harvey, D, Hayes, J, et al. Effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder on development of Alzheimer’s disease in Vietnam Veterans using the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: preliminary report. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2017; 3: 177–88.Google Scholar

Craft, S, Raman, R, Chow, TW, et al. Safety, efficacy, and feasibility of intranasal insulin for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer disease dementia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 1099–109.Google Scholar

Kaufman, AC, Salazar, SV, Haas, LT, et al. Fyn inhibition rescues established memory and synapse loss in Alzheimer mice. Ann Neurol 2015; 77: 953–71.Google Scholar

van Dyck, CH, Nygaard, HB, Chen, K, et al. Effect of AZD0530 on cerebral metabolic decline in Alzheimer disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2019; 76: 1219–29.Google Scholar

Newhouse, P, Kellar, K, Aisen, P, et al. Nicotine treatment of mild cognitive impairment: a 6-month double-blind pilot clinical trial. Neurology 2012; 78: 91–101.Google Scholar

Henley, D, Raghavan, N, Sperling, R, et al. Preliminary results of a trial of atabecestat in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1483–5.Google Scholar

Egan, MF, Kost, J, Voss, T, et al. Randomized trial of verubecestat for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 1408–20.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Sperling, RA, Cummings, J, et al. The Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical/Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease (TRC-PAD) project: an overview. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 208–12.Google Scholar

Galasko, D, Bennett, DA, Sano, M, et al. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: assessment of instrumental activities of daily living for community-dwelling elderly individuals in dementia prevention clinical trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: S152–69.Google Scholar

Cummings, JL, Raman, R, Ernstrom, K, Salmon, D, Ferris, SH, Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Group. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: behavioral measures in primary prevention trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: S147–51.Google Scholar

Schneider, LS, Clark, CM, Doody, R, et al. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: ADCS-clinicians’ global impression of change scales (ADCS–CGIC), self-rated and study partner-rated versions. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: S124–38.Google Scholar

Ferris, SH, Aisen, PS, Cummings, J, et al. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: overview and initial results. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: S109–23.Google Scholar

Logsdon, RG, Teri, L, Weiner, MF, et al. Assessment of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease: the agitated behavior in dementia scale. Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1999; 47: 1354–8.Google Scholar

Morris, JC, Ernesto, C, Schafer, K, et al. Clinical dementia rating training and reliability in multicenter studies: the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study experience. Neurology 1997; 48: 1508–10.Google Scholar

Schmitt, FA, Ashford, W, Ernesto, C, et al. The severe impairment battery: concurrent validity and the assessment of longitudinal change in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S51–6.Google Scholar

Galasko, D, Bennett, D, Sano, M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S33–9.Google Scholar

Schneider, LS, Olin, JT, Doody, RS, et al. Validity and reliability of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S22–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ferris, SH, Mackell, JA, Mohs, R, et al. A multicenter evaluation of new treatment efficacy instruments for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: overview and general results. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S1–12.Google Scholar

Walsh, SP, Raman, R, Jones, KB, Aisen, PS, Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Group. ADCS Prevention Instrument Project: the Mail-In Cognitive Function Screening Instrument (MCFSI). Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: S170–8.Google Scholar

Amariglio, RE, Donohue, MC, Marshall, GA, et al. Tracking early decline in cognitive function in older individuals at risk for Alzheimer disease dementia: the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Cognitive Function Instrument. JAMA Neurol 2015; 72: 446–54.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Andrieu, S, Sampaio, C, et al. Report of the task force on designing clinical trials in early (predementia) AD. Neurology 2011; 76: 280–6.Google Scholar

Coley, N, Raman, R, Donohue, MC, et al. Defining the optimal target population for trials of polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation using the erythrocyte omega-3 index: a step towards personalized prevention of cognitive decline? J Nutr Health Aging 2018; 22: 982–98.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Sun, CK, Raman, R, et al. Cross-validation of optimized composites for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2017; 3: 123–9.Google Scholar

Langford, O, Raman, R, Sperling, RA, et al. Predicting amyloid burden to accelerate recruitment of secondary prevention clinical trials. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 213–18.Google Scholar

Papp, KV, Rentz, DM, Maruff, P, et al. The Computerized Cognitive Composite (C3) in an Alzheimer’s disease secondary prevention trial. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2021; 8: 59–67.Google Scholar

Sano, M, Raman, R, Emond, J, et al. Adding delayed recall to the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale is useful in studies of mild cognitive impairment but not Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2011; 25: 122–7.Google Scholar

Li, D, Iddi, S, Thompson, WK, et al. Bayesian latent time joint mixed-effects model of progression in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2018; 10: 657–68.Google Scholar

Iddi, S, Li, D, Aisen, PS, et al. Estimating the evolution of disease in the Parkinson’s progression markers initiative. Neurodegener Dis 2018; 18: 173–90.Google Scholar

Li, D, Donohue, MC. Disease progression models for dominantly-inherited Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2018; 141: 1244–6.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Jacqmin-Gadda, H, Le Goff, M, et al. Estimating long-term multivariate progression from short-term data. Alzheimers Dement 2014; 10: S400–10.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Aisen, PS. Mixed model of repeated measures versus slope models in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. J Nutr Health Aging 2012; 16: 360–4.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Gamst, AC, Thomas, RG, et al. The relative efficiency of time-to-threshold and rate of change in longitudinal data. Contemp Clin Trials 2011; 32: 685–93.Google Scholar

Li, D, Iddi, S, Aisen, PS, Thompson, WK, Donohue, MC. The relative efficiency of time-to-progression and continuous measures of cognition in presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 308–18.Google Scholar

Nicoll, JA, Wilkinson, D, Holmes, C. Neuropathology of human Alzheimer disease after immunization with amyloid-beta peptide: a case report. Nat Med 2003; 9: 448–52.Google Scholar

Satlin, A, Wang, J, Logovinsky, V, et al. Design of a Bayesian adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for BAN2401, a putative disease-modifying monoclonal antibody for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2016; 2: 1–12.Google Scholar

Rafii, MS, Zaman, S, Handen, BL. Integrating biomarker outcomes into clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease in Down syndrome. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2021; 8: 48–51.Google Scholar

Handen, BL, Lott, IT, Christian, BT, et al. The Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium – Down syndrome: rationale and methodology. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2020; 12: e12065.Google Scholar

Ovod, V, Ramsey, KN, Mawuenyega, KG, et al. Amyloid beta concentrations and stable isotope labeling kinetics of human plasma specific to central nervous system amyloidosis. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 841–9.Google Scholar

Nakamura, A, Kaneko, N, Villemagne, VL, et al. High performance plasma amyloid-beta biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2018; 554: 249–54.Google Scholar

Janelidze, S, Berron, D, Smith, R, et al. Associations of plasma phospho-tau217 levels with tau positron emission tomography in early Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurol 2021; 78: 149–56.Google Scholar

Ritchie, CW, Molinuevo, JL, Satlin, A, et al. The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) Consortium: a platform to enable the secondary prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia through improved proof of concept trials. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 179–86.Google Scholar

Gregory, S, Wells, K, Forsyth, K, et al. Research participants as collaborators: background, experience and policies from the PREVENT Dementia and EPAD programmes. Dementia 2018; 17: 1045–54.Google Scholar

Ritchie, K, Ritchie, CW. The PREVENT study: a prospective cohort study to identify mid-life biomarkers of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e001893.Google Scholar

Vermunt, L, Veal, CD, Ter Meulen, L, et al. European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia Registry: recruitment and prescreening approach for a longitudinal cohort and prevention trials. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 837–42.Google Scholar

Solomon, A, Kivipelto, M, Molinuevoet, JL, al. European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia Longitudinal Cohort Study (EPAD LCS): study protocol. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e021017.Google Scholar

ten Kate, M, Ingala, S, Schwarz, A, et al. Secondary prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia: neuroimaging contributions. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 112.Google Scholar

Ritchie, K, Ropacki, M, Albala, B, et al. Recommended cognitive outcomes in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: consensus statement from the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia project. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 186–95.Google Scholar

Mortamais, M, Ash, J, Harrison, J, et al. Detecting cognitive changes in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: a review of its feasibility. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 468–92.Google Scholar

Ritchie, K, Carriere, I, Howett, D, et al. Allocentric and egocentric spatial processing in middle-aged adults at high risk of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease: the PREVENT Dementia Study. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 65: 885–96.Google Scholar

Ritchie, CW, Muniz-Terrera, G, Kivipelto, M, et al. The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) longitudinal cohort study: baseline data release V500.0. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2019; 7: 8–13.Google Scholar

Ingala, S, De Boer, C, Masselink, LA, the EPAD consortium. Application of the ATN classification scheme in a population without dementia: findings from the EPAD cohort. Alzheimers Dement 2021;DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Angus, D, Alexander, B, Berry, S, et al. Adaptive platform trials: definition, design, conduct, and reporting considerations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019; 18: 797–807.Google Scholar

Frisoni, G, Ritchie, C, Carrera, E, et al. Re-aligning scientific and lay narratives of Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2019; 18: 918–19.Google Scholar

Frisoni, GB, Molinuevo, JL, Altomare, D, et al. Precision prevention of Alzheimer’s and other dementias: anticipating future needs in the control of risk factors and implementation of disease-modifying therapies. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 1457–68.Google Scholar

Ritchie, CW, Russ, TC, Banerjee, S, et al. The Edinburgh Consensus: preparing for the advent of disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2017; 9: 85.Google Scholar

Jack, CR Jr., Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, et al. NIA–AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 535–62.Google Scholar

Vradenburg, G. Catalyzing the Landmark G8 Commitment. HuffPost 2013; December 23. Available at: www.huffpost.com/entry/catalyzing-the-landmark-g8-commitment_b_4489405 (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

Mathias, A, Lamberti, MJ, Getz, K. ‘START’ (Start-up Time And Readiness Tracking) study: Working Group final report. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD). Released June 15, 2012.Google Scholar

Amjad, H, Roth, DL, Sheehan, OC, et al. Underdiagnosis of dementia: an observational study of patterns in diagnosis and awareness in US older adults. J Gen Intern Med 2018; 33: 1131–8.Google Scholar

Carr, SA, Davis, R, Spencer, D, et al. Comparison of recruitment efforts targeted at primary care physicians versus the community at large for participation in Alzheimer disease clinical trials. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2010; 24: 165–70.Google Scholar

Research!America. Public perception of clinical trials. July 2017. Available at: www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/July2017ClinicalResearchSurveyPressReleaseDeck_0.pdf (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

Murphy-Barron, C, Pyenson, B, Ferro, C, Emery, M. Comparing the demographics of enrollees in Medicare Advantage and fee-for-service medicare. Milliman report. October 2020. Available at: www.bettermedicarealliance.org/publication/comparing-the-demographics-of-enrollees-in-medicare-advantage-and-fee-for-service-medicare/ (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

Alzheimer’s Association. 2020 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 391–460.Google Scholar

Shin, J, Doraiswamy, PM. Underrepresentation of African-Americans in Alzheimer’s trials: a call for affirmative action. Front Aging Neurosci 2016; 8: 123.Google Scholar

National Institutes of Health. NIH RCDC inclusion statistics report. Available at: https://report.nih.gov/RISR/#/ (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

United States Census Bureau. Quick facts United States. 2020. Available at: www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

US Food and Drug Administration. Qualification process for drug development tools guidance for industry and FDA staff draft guidance. November 2020. Available at: www.fda.gov/media/133511/download (accessed November 24, 2020).Google Scholar

Clark, CM, Pontecorvo, MJ, Beach, TB, et al. Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-β plaques: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11: 669–78.Google Scholar

Schwarz, AJ, Yu, P, Miller, BB, et al. Regional profiles of the candidate tau PET ligand ¹⁸F-AV-1451 recapitulate key features of Braak histopathological stages. Brain 2016; 139: 1539–50.Google Scholar

Jack, CR, Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, et al. A/T/N: an unbiased descriptive classification scheme for Alzheimer disease biomarkers. Neurology 2016; 87: 539–47.Google Scholar

Nakamura, A, Kaneko, N, Villemagne, VL, et al. High performance plasma amyloid-β biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2018; 554: 249–54.Google Scholar

Palmqvist, S, Janelidze, S, Quiroz, YT, et al. Discriminative accuracy of plasma phosphor-tau217 for Alzheimer disease vs other neurodegenerative disorders. JAMA 2020; 324: 772–81.Google Scholar

Morgan, AR, Touchard, S, Leckey, C, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers in Alzheimer’s disease plasma. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: 776–87.Google Scholar

Welsh, KA, Butters, N, Mohs, RC, et al. The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part V. A normative study of the neuropsychological battery. Neurology 1994; 44: 609–14.Google Scholar

Kourtis, LC, Regele, OB, Wright, JM, Jones, GB. Digital biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: the mobile wearable devices opportunity. NPJ Digit Med 2019; 2: 1–9.Google Scholar

McKhann, GM, Knopman, DS, Chertkow, H, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7: 263–9.Google Scholar

Sperling, RA, Donohue, MC, Raman, R, et al. Association of factors with elevated amyloid burden in clinically normal older individuals. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 735–45.Google Scholar

Ritchie, CW, Molinuevo, JL, Truyen, L, et al. Development of interventions for the secondary prevention of Alzheimer’s dementia: the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) project. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 179–86.Google Scholar

Onyike, CU, Diehl-Schmid, J. The epidemiology of frontotemporal dementia. Int Rev Psychiatry 2013; 25: 130–7.Google Scholar

Perry, DC, Brown, JA, Possin, KL, et al. Clinicopathological correlations in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. Brain 2017; 140: 3329–45.Google Scholar

Armstrong, MJ, Litvan, I, Lang, AE, et al. Criteria for the diagnosis of corticobasal degeneration. Neurology 2013; 80: 496–503.Google Scholar

Höglinger, GU, Respondek, G, Stamelou, M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy: the movement disorder society criteria. Mov Disord 2017; 32: 853–64.Google Scholar

Rascovsky, K, Hodges, JR, Knopman, D, et al. Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia. Brain 2011; 134: 2456–77.Google Scholar

Gorno-Tempini, M, Hillis, A, Weintraub, S, et al. Classification of primary progressive aphasia and its variants. Neurology 2011; 76: 1006–14.Google Scholar

Jadhav, S, Avila, J, Schöll, M, et al. A walk through tau therapeutic strategies. Acta Neuropathol Commun 2019; 7: 22.Google Scholar

Weingarten, MD, Lockwood, AH, Hwo, SY, Kirschner, MW. A protein factor essential for microtubule assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1975; 72: 1858–62.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, IRA, Neumann, M, Baborie, A, et al. A harmonized classification system for FTLD-TDP pathology. Acta Neuropathol 2011; 122: 111–13.Google Scholar

Svetoni, F, Frisone, P, Paronetto, MP. Role of FET proteins in neurodegenerative disorders. RNA Biol 2016; 13: 1089–102.Google Scholar

Spinelli, EG, Mandelli, ML, Miller, ZA, et al. Typical and atypical pathology in primary progressive aphasia variants. Ann Neurol 2017; 81: 430–43.Google Scholar

Boxer, AL, Lang, AE, Grossman, M, et al. Davunetide in patients with progressive supranuclear palsy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13: 676–85.Google Scholar

Forrest, SL, Kril, JJ, Stevens, CH, et al. Retiring the term FTDP-17 as MAPT mutations are genetic forms of sporadic frontotemporal tauopathies. Brain 2018; 141: 521–34.Google Scholar

Lee, SE, Rabinovici, GD, Mayo, MC, et al. Clinicopathological correlations in corticobasal degeneration. Ann Neurol 2011; 70: 327–40.Google Scholar

Haynes, BA, Rhinn, H, Yeh, FL, et al. AL001 restores CSF PGRN levels and normalizes disease-associated biomarkers in individuals with frontotemporal dementia due to heterozygous mutations in the progranulin gene. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: e046114.Google Scholar

Boxer, AL, Moebius, HJ, Harris, B, et al. Phase 2a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi), FRM-0334, in asymptomatic carriers of, or patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) due to progranulin gene mutations. Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, Los Angeles, CA, 2019.Google Scholar

Sha, SJ, Miller, ZA, won, Min S, et al. An 8-week, open-label, dose-finding study of nimodipine for the treatment of progranulin insufficiency from GRN gene mutations. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2017; 3: 507–12.Google Scholar

The Angel Fund for ALS Research. Research at the day lab. Available at: https://theangelfund.org/research-at-day-lab/ (accessed December 28, 2020).Google Scholar

Boxer, A, Ljubenkov, P, VandeVrede, L, et al. A Phase 1b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel cohort safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary efficacy study of intravenously infused BIIB092 in patients with four different tauopathy syndromes. 13th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) Congress, November 4–7, 2020.Google Scholar

Boxer, AL, Gold, M, Feldman, H, et al. New directions in clinical trials for frontotemporal lobar degeneration: methods and outcome measures. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 131–43.Google Scholar

ALLFTD. History. Available at: www.allftd.org/history (accessed December 30, 2020).Google Scholar

Richardson, E, Burnell, J, Adams, HR, et al. Developing and implementing performance outcome assessments: evidentiary, methodologic, and operational considerations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2019; 53: 146–53.Google Scholar

Gaasterland, CMW, Jansen-Van Der Weide, MC, Weinreich, SS, Van Der Lee, JH . A systematic review to investigate the measurement properties of goal attainment scaling, towards use in drug trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 99.Google Scholar

Guinart, D, de Filippis, R, Rosson, S, et al. Development and validation of a computerized adaptive assessment tool for discrimination and measurement of psychotic symptoms. Schizophr Bull 2021; 47: 644–52.Google Scholar

Mioshi, E, Hsieh, S, Savage, S, Hornberger, M, Hodges, JR. Clinical staging and disease progression in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2010; 74: 1591–7.Google Scholar

Pfeffer, RI, Kurosaki, TT, Harrah, CH, Chance, JM, Filos, S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol 1982; 37: 323–9.Google Scholar

Miyagawa, T, Brushaber, D, Syrjanen, J, et al. Use of the CDR® plus NACC FTLD in mild FTLD: data from the ARTFL/LEFFTDS consortium. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 79–90.Google Scholar

Boeve, B, Rosen, H, Boxer, A, et al. The Multidomain Impairment Rating (MIR) Scale: initial reliability data on a multidimensional scale for FTLD (P5.1–010). Neurology 2019; 92;https://n.neurology.org/content/92/15_Supplement/P5.1-010.abstract.Google Scholar

Staffaroni, AM, Ljubenkov, PA, Kornak, J, et al. Longitudinal multimodal imaging and clinical endpoints for frontotemporal dementia clinical trials. Brain 2019; 142: 443–59.Google Scholar

Toller, G, Ranasinghe, K, Cobigo, Y, et al. Revised Self-Monitoring Scale: A potential endpoint for frontotemporal dementia clinical trials. Neurology 2020; 94: e2384–95.Google Scholar

Staffaroni, AM, Bajorek, L, Casaletto, KB, et al. Assessment of executive function declines in presymptomatic and mildly symptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia: NIH-EXAMINER as a potential clinical trial endpoint. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 11–21.Google Scholar

FDA. Table of surrogate endpoints that were the basis of drug approval or licensure. www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrogate-endpoints-were-basis-drug-approval-or-licensure (accessed December 30, 2020).Google Scholar

Swift, IJ, Sogorb-Esteve, A, Heller, C, et al. Fluid biomarkers in frontotemporal dementia: past, present and future. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2021; 92: 204–15.Google Scholar

Palmqvist, S, Janelidze, S, Quiroz, YT, et al. Discriminative accuracy of plasma phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer disease vs other neurodegenerative disorders. JAMA 2020; 324: 772–81.Google Scholar

Thijssen, EH, La Joie, R, Wolf, A, et al. Diagnostic value of plasma phosphorylated tau₁₈₁ in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Nat Med 2020; 26: 387–97.Google Scholar

Paterson, RW, Slattery, CF, Poole, T, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: clinical utility of an extended panel of biomarkers in a specialist cognitive clinic. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 32.Google Scholar

Meeter, LHH, Vijverberg, EG, Del Campo, M, et al. Clinical value of neurofilament and phospho-tau/tau ratio in the frontotemporal dementia spectrum. Neurology 2018; 90: e1231–9.Google Scholar

Rojas, JC, Karydas, A, Bang, J, et al. Plasma neurofilament light chain predicts progression in progressive supranuclear palsy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2016; 3: 216–25.Google Scholar

Ljubenkov, PA, Staffaroni, AM, Rojas, JC, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers predict frontotemporal dementia trajectory. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2018; 5: 1250–63.Google Scholar

Meeter, LH, Dopper, EG, Jiskoot, LC, et al. Neurofilament light chain: a biomarker for genetic frontotemporal dementia. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2016; 3: 623–36.Google Scholar

Gass, J, Cannon, A, Mackenzie, IR, et al. Mutations in progranulin are a major cause of ubiquitin-positive frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Hum Mol Genet 2006; 15: 2988–3001.Google Scholar

Baker, M, Mackenzie, IR, Pickering-Brown, SM, et al. Mutations in progranulin cause tau-negative frontotemporal dementia linked to chromosome 17. Nature 2006; 442: 916–19.Google Scholar

Shankaran, SS, Capell, A, Hruscha, AT, et al. Missense mutations in the progranulin gene linked to frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-immunoreactive inclusions reduce progranulin production and secretion. J Biol Chem 2008; 283: 1744–53.Google Scholar

Kao, AW, McKay, A, Singh, PP, Brunet, A, Huang, EJ. Progranulin, lysosomal regulation and neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 2017; 18: 325–33.Google Scholar

Meeter, LHH, Patzke, H, Loewen, G, et al. Progranulin levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid in granulin mutation carriers. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra 2016; 6: 330–40.Google Scholar

Finch, N, Baker, M, Crook, R, et al. Plasma progranulin levels predict progranulin mutation status in frontotemporal dementia patients and asymptomatic family members. Brain 2009; 132: 583–91.Google Scholar

Ash, PEA, Bieniek, KF, Gendron, TF, et al. Unconventional translation of C9orf72 GGGGCC expansion generates insoluble polypeptides specific to c9FTD/ALS. Neuron 2013; 77: 639–46.Google Scholar

Mori, K, Arzberger, T, Grässer, FA, et al. Bidirectional transcripts of the expanded C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat are translated into aggregating dipeptide repeat proteins. Acta Neuropathol 2013; 126: 881–93.Google Scholar

Gendron, TF, Chew, J, Stankowski, JN, et al. Poly(GP) proteins are a useful pharmacodynamic marker for C9orf72-associated amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9: eaai7866.Google Scholar

Cammack, AJ, Atassi, N, Hyman, T, et al. Prospective natural history study of C9orf72 ALS clinical characteristics and biomarkers. Neurology 2019; 93: E1605–17.Google Scholar

Lee, SE, Sias, AC, Kosik, EL, et al. Thalamo-cortical network hyperconnectivity in preclinical progranulin mutation carriers. Neuroimage Clin 2019; 22;DOI: https://doi.10.1016/j.nicl.2019.101751.Google Scholar

Jacova, C, Hsiung, GYR, Tawankanjanachot, I, et al. Anterior brain glucose hypometabolism predates dementia in progranulin mutation carriers. Neurology 2013; 81: 1322–31.Google Scholar

Binney, RJ, Pankov, A, Marx, G, et al. Data-driven regions of interest for longitudinal change in three variants of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Brain Behav 2017; 7: e00675.Google Scholar

Staffaroni, AM, Cobigo, Y, Goh, S-YM, et al. Individualized atrophy scores predict dementia onset in familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 37–48.Google Scholar

Cenik, B, Sephton, CF, Dewey, CM, et al. Suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid (vorinostat) up-regulates progranulin transcription: rational therapeutic approach to frontotemporal dementia. J Biol Chem 2011; 286: 16101–8.Google Scholar

Lee, WC, Almeida, S, Prudencio, M, et al. Targeted manipulation of the sortilin–progranulin axis rescues progranulin haploinsufficiency. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23: 1467–78.Google Scholar

Paul, R. AL001 Phase 1b/2 update. Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, July 26–30, 2020.Google Scholar

Alector Inc. Alector showcases progress in immuno-neurology clinical programs and research portfolio at R&D day. Available at: www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/13/1960338/0/en/Alector-Showcases-Progress-in-Immuno-Neurology-Clinical-Programs-and-Research-Portfolio-at-R-D-Day.html (accessed February 17, 2020).Google Scholar

Passage Bio. Pipeline: frontotemporal dementia. Available at: www.passagebio.com/pipeline/frontotemporal-dementia/default.aspx. (accessed June 20, 2020).Google Scholar

Prevail Therapeutics. Prevail Therapeutics announces first patient dosed in Phase 1/2 PROCLAIM clinical trial evaluating PR006 for the treatment of frontotemporal dementia patients with GRN mutations. Available at: www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/12/11/2143673/0/en/Prevail-Therapeutics-Announces-First-Patient-Dosed-in-Phase-1-2-PROCLAIM-Clinical-Trial-Evaluating-PR006-for-the-Treatment-of-Frontotemporal-Dementia-Patients-with-GRN-Mutations.html (accessed December 27, 2020).Google Scholar

Denali. Our pipeline. Available at:https://denalitherapeutics.com/pipeline (accessed June 20, 2020).Google Scholar

Alzprotect. AZP2006: a mechanism of action with multiple effects, a unique solution for neurodegeneration. Available at: www.alzprotect.com/en/pipeline/azp2006?view=article&layout=alzprotect:hero-article (accessed December 30, 2020).Google Scholar

Taylor, JP, Brown, RH, Cleveland, DW. Decoding ALS: from genes to mechanism. Nature 2016; 539: 197–206.Google Scholar

DeVos, SL, Miller, TM. Antisense oligonucleotides: treating neurodegeneration at the level of RNA. Neurotherapeutics 2013; 10: 486–97.Google Scholar

Lim, KRQ, Maruyama, R, Yokota, T. Eteplirsen in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Drug Des Devel Ther 2017; 11: 533–45.Google Scholar

Hoy, SM. Nusinersen: first global approval. Drugs 2017; 77: 473–9.Google Scholar

Miller, T, Cudkowicz, M, Shaw, PJ, et al. Phase 1–2 trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 109–19.Google Scholar

Jiang, J, Zhu, Q, Gendron, TF, et al. Gain of toxicity from ALS/FTD-linked repeat expansions in C9orf72 is alleviated by antisense oligonucleotides targeting GGGGCC-containing RNAs. Neuron 2016; 90: 535–50.Google Scholar

Sanders, DW, Kaufman, SK, DeVos, SL, et al. Distinct tau prion strains propagate in cells and mice and define different tauopathies. Neuron 2014; 82: 1271–88.Google Scholar

Yanamandra, K, Kfoury, N, Jiang, H, et al. Anti-tau antibodies that block tau aggregate seeding in vitro markedly decrease pathology and improve cognition in vivo. Neuron 2013; 80: 402–14.Google Scholar

Zhou, Y, Shi, J, Chu, D, et al. Relevance of phosphorylation and truncation of tau to the etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci 2018; 10: 27.Google Scholar

CurePSP. UCB pauses the development of bepranemab for progressive supranuclear palsy. Available at: www.psp.org/ucb-shift-2020/ (accessed December 28, 2020).Google Scholar

Novak, P, Schmidt, R, Kontsekova, E, et al. FUNDAMANT: an interventional 72-week phase 1 follow-up study of AADvac1, an active immunotherapy against tau protein pathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 108.Google Scholar

Hung, S-Y, Fu, W-M. Drug candidates in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease. J Biomed Sci 2017; 24: 47.Google Scholar

Tsai, RM, Miller, Z, Koestler, M, et al. Reactions to multiple ascending doses of the microtubule stabilizer TPI-287 in patients with Alzheimer disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 215–24.Google Scholar

Mignon, L, Kordasiewicz, H, Lane, R, et al. Design of the first-in-human study of IONIS-MAPTRx, a tau-lowering antisense oligonucleotide, in patients with Alzheimer disease (S2.006). Neurology 2018; 90.Google Scholar

Rodriguez-Martin, T, Anthony, K, Garcia-Blanco, MA, Mansfield, SG, Anderton, BH, Gallo, JM. Correction of tau mis-splicing caused by FTDP-17 MAPT mutations by spliceosome-mediated RNA trans-splicing. Hum Mol Genet 2009; 18: 3266–73.Google Scholar

Wischik, CM, Edwards, PC, Lai, RYK, Roth, M, Harrington, CR. Selective inhibition of Alzheimer disease-like tau aggregation by phenothiazines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996; 93: 11213–18.Google Scholar

Gauthier, S, Feldman, HH, Schneider, LS, et al. Efficacy and safety of tau-aggregation inhibitor therapy in patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-arm, Phase 3 trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2873–84.Google Scholar

Tolosa, E, Litvan, I, Höglinger, GU, et al. A Phase 2 trial of the GSK-3 inhibitor tideglusib in progressive supranuclear palsy. Mov Disord 2014; 29: 470–8.Google Scholar

Gentry, EG, Henderson, BW, Arrant, AE, et al. Rho kinase inhibition as a therapeutic for progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal degeneration. J Neurosci 2016; 36: 1316–23.Google Scholar

Woolsey Pharmaceuticals. PSP and CSP patients. Available at: www.woolseypharma.com/psp-cbs/ (accessed December 28, 2020).Google Scholar

Min, SW, Chen, X, Tracy, TE, et al. Critical role of acetylation in tau-mediated neurodegeneration and cognitive deficits. Nat Med 2015; 21: 1154–62.Google Scholar

VandeVrede, L, Dale, ML, Fields, S, et al. Open-label Phase 1 futility studies of salsalate and young plasma in progressive supranuclear palsy. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2020; 7: 440–7.Google Scholar

Hastings, NB, Wang, X, Song, L, et al. Inhibition of O-GlcNAcase leads to elevation of O-GlcNAc tau and reduction of tauopathy and cerebrospinal fluid tau in rTg4510 mice. Mol Neurodegener 2017; 12: 1–16.Google Scholar

Asceneuron. R&D pipeline. Available at: www.asceneuron.com/pipeline (accessed December 28, 2020).Google Scholar

Giordano, R, Canesi, M, Isalberti, M, et al. Autologous mesenchymal stem cell therapy for progressive supranuclear palsy: translation into a Phase I controlled, randomized clinical study. J Transl Med 2014; 12: 14.Google Scholar

Katsimpardi, L, Litterman, NK, Schein, PA, et al. Vascular and neurogenic rejuvenation of the aging mouse brain by young systemic factors. Science 2014; 344: 630–4.Google Scholar

Villeda, SA, Plambeck, KE, Middeldorp, J, et al. Young blood reverses age-related impairments in cognitive function and synaptic plasticity in mice. Nat Med 2014; 20: 659–63.Google Scholar

Desmarais, P, Rohrer, JD, Nguyen, QD, et al. Therapeutic trial design for frontotemporal dementia and related disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2019; 90: 412–23.Google Scholar

Tao, JJ, Schram, AM, Hyman, DM. Basket studies: redefining clinical trials in the era of genome-driven oncology. Annu Rev Med 2018; 69: 319–31.Google Scholar

Berry, SM, Connor, JT, Lewis, RJ. The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. JAMA 2015; 313: 1619–20.Google Scholar

Boada, M, López, OL, Olazarán, J, et al. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of plasma exchange with albumin replacement for Alzheimer’s disease: primary results of the AMBAR study. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 1412–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12137.Google Scholar

Kivipelto, M, Mangialasche, F, Ngandu, T. Lifestyle interventions to prevent cognitive impairment, dementia and Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2018; 14: 653–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-018-0070-3.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Ballard, C, Tariot, P, et al. Pimavanserin: potential treatment for dementia-related psychosis. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2018; 5: 253–8. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2018.29.Google Scholar

Huang, P, Goetz, CG, Woolson, RF, et al. Using global statistical tests in long-term Parkinson’s disease clinical trials. Mov Disord 2009; 24: 1732–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22645.Google Scholar

Dickson, SP. Comparison of aducanumab, solanezumab and BAN2401 using a global statistical test for assessing impact on overall strength of evidence. 13th Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) Congress, November 4–7, 2020.Google Scholar

Schneider, LS, Goldberg, TE. Composite cognitive and functional measures for early stage Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement Diagnosis, Assess Dis Monit 2020; 12: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12017.Google Scholar

Hendrix, SB, Dickson, SP, Ellison, N. Composite endpoints – pro perspective: the key to successful clinical development in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: P1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.3660.Google Scholar

Hendrix, SB, Ellison, N. ADCOMS: a sensitive measure of disease progression in early AD supporting better development decisions. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: P520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4426.Google Scholar

Wang, J, Logovinsky, V, Hendrix, SB, et al. ADCOMS: a composite clinical outcome for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016; 87: 993–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2015-312383.Google Scholar

Wessels, AM, Siemers, ER, Yu, P, et al. A combined measure of cognition and function for clinical trials: the Integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS). J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2015; 2: 227–41. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2015.82.Google Scholar

Langbaum, JB, Ellison, NN, Caputo, A, et al. The Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative Composite Cognitive test: a practical measure for tracking cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2020; 12: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-020-00633-2.Google Scholar

Donohue, MC, Sperling, RA, Salmon, DP, et al. The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol 2014; 71: 961–70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.803.Google Scholar

Blennow, K, Zetterberg, H. Biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease: current status and prospects for the future. J Intern Med 2018; 284: 643–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12816.Google Scholar

Ismail, R, Parbo, P, Madsen, LS, et al. The relationships between neuroinflammation, beta-amyloid and tau deposition in Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal PET study. J Neuroinflammation 2020; 17: 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12974-020-01820-6.Google Scholar

Preische, O, Schultz, SA, Apel, A, et al. Serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer’s disease. Nat Med 2019; 25: 277–83. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0304-3.Google Scholar

Liu, W, Lin, H, He, X, et al. Neurogranin as a cognitive biomarker in cerebrospinal fluid and blood exosomes for Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. Transl Psychiatry 2020; 10: 125. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-020-0801-2.Google Scholar

O’Brien, PC, Fleming, TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35: 549–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530245.Google Scholar

Lan, KKG, Demets, DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 1983; 70: 659–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.3.659.Google Scholar

Whitehead, J, Stratton, I. Group sequential clinical trials with triangular continuation regions. Biometrics 1983; 39: 227–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530822.Google Scholar

Hume, S, Aerts, J, Sarnikar, S, Huser, V. Current applications and future directions for the CDISC Operational Data Model standard: a methodological review. J Biomed Inform 2016; 60: 352–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.016.Google Scholar

Hendrix, SB, Wilcock, GK. What we have learned from the Myriad trials. J Nutr Health Aging 2009; 13: 362–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-009-0044-7.Google Scholar

Hendrix, SB. Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time. Alzheimers Res Ther 2012; 4: 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/alzrt127.Google Scholar

US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Early Alzheimer’s disease: developing drugs for treatment. Guidance for industry. Available at: www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Alzheimer%E2%80%99s-Disease---Developing-Drugs-for-Treatment-Guidance-for-Industy.pdf (accessed January 20, 2021).Google Scholar

European Medicines Agency. Clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease/ CPMP/EWP/553/1995. Available at: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicines-treatment-alzheimers-disease-revision-2_en.pdf (accessed January 20, 2021).Google Scholar

Alzheimer’s Association. 2020 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 391–460.Google Scholar

Babulal, GM, Quiroz, YT, Albensi, BC, et al. Perspectives on ethnic and racial disparities in Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias: update and areas of immediate need. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: 292–312.Google Scholar

Wong, R, Amano, T, Lin, S-Y, Zhou, Y, Morrow-Howell, N. Strategies for the recruitment and retention of racial/ethnic minorities in Alzheimer disease and dementia clinical research. Curr Alzheimer Res 2019; 16: 458–71.Google Scholar

Ashford, MT, Eichenbaum, J, Williams, T, et al. Effects of sex, race, ethnicity, and education on online aging research participation. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: 1–9.Google Scholar

McDonald, A, Knight, R, Cambell, M, et al. What influences recruitment to randomized controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006; 7: 1–8.Google Scholar

Dowling, NM, Olson, N, Mish, T, Kaprakattu, P, Gleason, C. A model for the design and implementation of a participant recruitment registry for clinical studies of older adults. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 204–14.Google Scholar

Hsu, D, Marshall, GA. Primary and secondary prevention trials in Alzheimer disease: looking back, moving forward. Curr Alzheimer Res 2016; 14: 426–40.Google Scholar

Aisen, PS, Sperling, RA, Cummings, J, et al. The Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical/Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease (TRC-PAD) project: an overview. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 208–12.Google Scholar

Rafii, MS, Aisen, PS. Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: moving toward successful prevention. CNS Drugs 2019; 33: 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-018-0598-1.Google Scholar

Cummings, J, Lee, G, Ritter, A, Sabbagh, M, Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: 2020. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12050.Google Scholar

US Food and Drug Administration. Enhancing the diversity of clinical trial populations: eligibility criteria, enrollment practices, and trial designs guidance for industry. November 2020. www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enhancing-diversity-clinical-trial-populations-eligibility-criteria-enrollment-practices-and-trial. Available at: www.fda.gov/media/127712/download November 17, 2020).Google Scholar

National Institute on Aging. Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias: clinical studies recruitment planning guide. Available at: www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/ADEAR-recruitment-guide-508.pdf (accessed June 17, 2020).Google Scholar

Heredia, NI, Strong, LL, Hatten, V. Community perceptions of biobanking participation: a qualitative study among Mexican-Americans in three Texas cities. Public Health Genom 2017; 20: 46–57.Google Scholar

Nuño, MM, Gillen, DL, Dosanjh, KK, et al. Attitudes toward clinical trials across the Alzheimer ’s disease spectrum. Alzheimers Res Ther 2017; 9: 81–90.Google Scholar

Zhou, Y, Elashoff, D, Kremen, S, et al. African Americans are less likely to enroll in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2017; 3: 57–64.Google Scholar

Barnes, LL, Bennett, DA. Alzheimer’s disease in African Americans: risk factors and challenges for the future. Health Aff 2014; 33: 580–6.Google Scholar

Matthews, KA, Xu, W, Gaglioti, AH, et al. Racial and ethnic estimates of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in the United States (2015–2060) in adults aged ≥65 years. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: 17–24.Google Scholar

Faison, WE, Schultz, SK, Aerssens, J, et al. Potential ethnic modifiers in the assessment and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: challenges for the future. Int Psychogeriatr 2007; 19: 539–58.Google Scholar

Olin, JT, Dagerman, KS, Fox, LS, Bowers, B, Schneider, SL. Increasing ethnic minority participation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2002; 16: S82–5.Google Scholar

Grill, JD, Kwon, J, Teylan, MA, et al. Retention of Alzheimer disease research participants. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2019; 33: 299–306.Google Scholar

Chêne, G, Beiser, A, Au, R, et al. Gender and incidence of dementia in the Framingham Heart Study from mid-adult life. Alzheimers Dement 2015; 11: 310–20.Google Scholar

Hebert, L, Weuve, J, Scherr, PA, Evans, D. Alzheimer’s disease in the United States (2010–2050) estimated using the 2010 Census. Neurology 2013; 80: 1778–83.Google Scholar

Plassman, BL, Langa, KM, Fisher, GG, et al. Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study. Neuroepidemiology 2007; 29: 125–32.Google Scholar

Mehta, K, Yeo, G. Systematic review of dementia prevalence and incidence in US racial/ethnic populations. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 72–83.Google Scholar

Weden, MM. Secular trends in dementia and cognitive impairment of U.S. rural and urban older adults. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54: 164–72.Google Scholar

Jaffe, S. Aging in rural America. Health Aff 2015; 34: 7–10.Google Scholar

Singh, GK, Siahpush, M. Widening rural–urban disparities in all-cause mortality and mortality from major causes of death in the USA, 1969–2009. J Urban Health 2014; 91: 272–92.Google Scholar

Borak, J, Salipante-Zaidel, C, Slade, M, Fields, C. Mortality disparities in Appalachia: reassessment of major risk factors. J Occup Environ Med 2012; 54: 146–56.Google Scholar

Galvin, J, Fu, Q, Nguyen, J, Glasheen, C, Scharff, D. Psychosocial determinants of intention to screen for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2009; 4: 353–60.Google Scholar

Wiese, LK, Williams, CL, Tappen, RM. Analysis of barriers to cognitive screening in rural populations in the United States. Adv Nurs Sci 2014; 37: 327–39.Google Scholar

National Institute on Aging. Together we make the difference: national strategy for recruitment and participation in Alzheimer’s and related dementias clinical research. Available at: www.nia.nih.gov/research/recruitment-strategy (accessed October 22, 2020).Google Scholar

Marquez, DX, Glover, CM, Lamar, M, et al. Representation of older Latinxs in cohort studies at the Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center. Neuroepidemiology 2020; 54: 404–18.Google Scholar

Williams, MM, Meisel, MM, Williams, J, Morris, JC. An interdisciplinary outreach model of African American recruitment for Alzheimer’s disease research. Gerontologist 2011; 51: 134–41.Google Scholar

Howell, JC, Parker, MW, Watts, KD, et al. Research lumbar punctures among African Americans and Caucasians: perception predicts experience. Front Aging Neurosci 2016; 8: 1–7.Google Scholar

Boise, L, Hinton, L, Rosen, HJ, Ruhl, M. Will my soul go to heaven if they take my brain? Beliefs and worries about brain donation among four ethnic groups. Gerontologist 2017; 57: 719–34.Google Scholar

Walter, S, Clanton, TB, Langford, OG, et al. Recruitment into the Alzheimer Prevention Trials (APT) Webstudy for a Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical and Prodromal Alzheimer’s Disease (TRC–PAD). J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 219–25.Google Scholar

Jimenez-Maggiora, GA, Bruschi, S, Raman, R, et al. TRC-PAD: accelerating recruitment of AD clinical trials through innovative information technology. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 226–33.Google Scholar

Grill, JD, Monsell, SE. Choosing Alzheimer’s disease prevention clinical trial populations. Neurobiol Aging 2014; 35: 1–16.Google Scholar

Weuve, J, Sagiv, SK, Fox, MP. Quantitative bias analysis for collaborative science. Epidemiology 2018; 29: 627–30.Google Scholar

Burke, SL, Hu, T, Naseh, M, et al. Factors influencing attrition in 35 Alzheimer’s disease centers across the USA: a longitudinal examination of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center’s Uniform Data Set. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019; 31: 1283–97.Google Scholar

Glymour, MM, Chěne, G, Tzourio, C, Brain, Dufouil C. MRI markers and dropout in a longitudinal study of cognitive aging: the three-city Dijon study. Neurology 2012; 79: 1340–8.Google Scholar

Crocker, JC, Ricci-Cabello, I, Parker, A, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2018; 363: 1–17.Google Scholar

Alzheimer’s Association. 2020 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 391–460.Google Scholar

Fargo, KN, Carrillo, MC, Weiner, MW, Potter, WZ, Khachaturian, Z. The crisis in recruitment for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s and dementia: an action plan for solutions. Alzheimers Dement 2016; 12: 1113–15.Google Scholar

Grill, JD, Karlawish, J. Addressing the challenges to successful recruitment and retention in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther 2010; 2: 34.Google Scholar

Tang, M-X, Cross, P, Andrews, H, et al. Incidence of AD in African-Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and Caucasians in northern Manhattan. Neurology 2001; 56: 49–56.Google Scholar

Sperling, RA, Aisen, PS, Beckett, LA, et al. Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7: 280–92.Google Scholar

Norton, S, Matthews, FE, Barnes, DE, Yaffe, K, Brayne, C. Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis of population-based data. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13: 788–94.Google Scholar

Ovod, V, Ramsey, KN, Mawuenyega, KG, et al. Amyloid beta concentrations and stable isotope labeling kinetics of human plasma specific to central nervous system amyloidosis. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 841–9.Google Scholar

Mattsson-Carlgren, N, Janelidze, S, Palmqvist, S, et al. Longitudinal plasma p-tau217 is increased in early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain 2020; 143: 3234–41.Google Scholar

Aisen, P, Touchon, J, Andrieu, S, et al. Registries and cohorts to accelerate early phase Alzheimer’s trials. A report from the E.U./U.S. Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease Task Force. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2016; 3: 68–4.Google Scholar

Kluding, PM, Denton, J, Jamison, TR, et al. Frontiers: integration of a research participant registry with medical clinic registration and electronic health records. Clin Transl Sci 2015; 8: 405–11.Google Scholar

Grill, JD. Recruiting to preclinical Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials through registries. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2017; 3: 205–12.Google Scholar

Jeon, YH, Fargo, K, Smith, A, et al. Comparison of digital platforms for participant recruitment in dementia research: lessons and future directions from a global collaborative: epidemiology/innovative methods in epidemiology (i.e., assessment methods, design, recruitment strategies, statistical methods, etc.). Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: e046401.Google Scholar

Weiner, MW, Nosheny, R, Camacho, M, et al. The Brain Health Registry: an internet-based platform for recruitment, assessment, and longitudinal monitoring of participants for neuroscience studies. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 1063–76.Google Scholar

Mackin, RS, Insel, PS, Truran, D, et al. Unsupervised online neuropsychological test performance for individuals with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: results from the Brain Health Registry. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2018 10: 573–82.Google Scholar

Nosheny, RL, Camacho, MR, Insel, PS, et al. Online study partner-reported cognitive decline in the Brain Health Registry. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 4: 565–74.Google Scholar

Nosheny, RL, Camacho, MR, Jin, C, et al. Validation of online functional measures in cognitively impaired older adults. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 16: 1426–37.Google Scholar

Ashford, MT, Neuhaus, J, Jin, C, et al. Predicting amyloid status using self-report information from an online research and recruitment registry: the Brain Health Registry. Alzheimers Dement (Amst) 2020; 12: e12102.Google Scholar

Ashford, MT, Eichenbaum, J, Williams, T, et al. Effects of sex, race, ethnicity, and education on online aging research participation. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12028.Google Scholar

Fockler, JK, Ashford, MT, Flenniken, D, et al. Brain Health Registry GenePool study: a novel approach to online genetics research. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2021; 7: e12118.Google Scholar

Langbaum, JB, High, N, Nichols, J, et al. The Alzheimer’s Prevention Registry: a large internet-based participant recruitment registry to accelerate referrals to Alzheimer’s-focused studies. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2020; 7: 242–50.Google Scholar

Reiman, EM, Langbaum, JB, Tariot, PN. Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative: a proposal to evaluate presymptomatic treatments as quickly as possible. Biomark Med 2010; 4: 3–14.Google Scholar

Langbaum, JB, Karlawish, J, Roberts, JS, et al. GeneMatch: a novel recruitment registry using at-home APoE genotyping to enhance referrals to Alzheimer’s prevention studies. Alzheimers Dement 2019; 15: 515–24.Google Scholar