Bayes analysis supports null hypothesis of anti‐amyloid beta therapy in Alzheimer's disease

Abstract

Numerous clinical trials of anti-amyloid beta (Aβ) immunotherapy in Alzheimer's disease have been performed. None of these have provided convincing evidence for beneficial effects. Using traditional frequentist meta-analysis, the conclusion is that there is absence of evidence for a therapeutic effect, with a point estimate effect size of 0.05 (95% confidence interval −0.00 to 0.10, P = .055). In addition, this non-significant effect equates to 0.4 points per year on the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale. This is well below the minimally clinically important difference.Bayesian meta-analysis of these trial data provides strong evidence of absence of a therapeutic effect, with a Bayes factor of 11.27 in favor of the null hypothesis, opposed to a Bayes factor of 0.09 in favor of a treatment effect. Bayesian analysis is particularly valuable in this context of repeatedly reported small, non-significant effect sizes in individual trials. Mechanisms other than removal of Aβ from the brain may be probed to slow progression of Alzheimer's disease.

FDA’s dilemma with the aducanumab approval: public pressure and hope, surrogate markers and efficacy, and possible next steps

“…A recent meta-analysis showed that amyloid removal does not lead to clinical improvement 14. Several trials have revealed that treatment with anti-amyloid therapies does not result in clinical benefits, and even if a future RCT reports positive results, it cannot be interpreted without accounting for all the previous neutral results 15…”

How Bayesian statistics may help answer some of the controversial questions in clinical research on Alzheimer's disease

“…First, Richard et al.’s meta‐analytic work compared the conclusions that can be drawn from the systematic review of phase 3 anti‐amyloid trials in AD using a frequentist approach with the conclusions from a Bayesian framework 14 . The conclusion from the frequentist analysis was “One cannot reject the assumption of the absence of an effect.” This information leaves the question “Is there evidence for a beneficial effect of anti‐amyloid treatment based on the published phase 3 trials so far?” unanswered.…”

Stem Cells: Innovative Therapeutic Options for Neurodegenerative Diseases?

“…On June 7, 2021, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Aduhelm (aducanumab) [67], a human IgG1 anti-Aβ monoclonal antibody claiming to reduce, in a dose-and time dependent manner, β-amyloid plaques in AD patients, as assessed by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies [68]. Despite the reduction of Aβ-burden could provide a surrogate endpoint to predict a meaningful therapeutic benefit, clinical data failed to show a significant protection from cognitive and functional decline over considerable adverse events, leaving significant uncertainty about an acceptable risk/benefit profile of the drug [69]. Furthermore, a nine-year post-approval confirmatory study was committed in order to attempt a reassessment of the real efficacy of the treatment, also in view of its burdensome costs.…”