This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

47/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 47 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers

Measurements Primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 104 in cerebral amyloid burden as measured by the global cortical average (GCA) standard value uptake ratio (SUVR) based on the brain 18F-florbetapir PET composite cortical SUVR between each ACC-001+QS-21 dose compared with placebo. Results Of 126 randomized patients (placebo: 40; ACC-001 3 µg+QS-21: 43; and ACC-001 10 µg+QS-21: 43), 125 received study treatment; 92 (73%) completed the study. Change in 18F-florbetapir PET GCA SUVR, was not significantly different between either of the two ACC-001+QS-21 treatment groups and placebo (3 μg +QS-21 vs. placebo diff=-0.03, p=0.54; 10 μg +QS-21 vs. placebo diff=-0.08, p=0.07), but the trend was numerically consistent with a dose response. The vMRI showed statistically significant faster treatment-related decrease in brain volume in the 10 μg group but was not significant in the 3 μg group, compared with placebo (3 μg diff =-1.3 mL/year, p=0.50; 10 μg diff=-4.2 mL/year, p=0.02). Conclusions Primary biomarker efficacy endpoints were not statistically significant in either dose group. The numerical decreases in 18F-florbetapir PET GCA SUVR suggests a dose-related trend for greater reductions in fibrillar amyloid burden in the ACC-001+QS-21 10 µg group compared with placebo. Likewise, while not significant, there was a numerical trend of decreased CSF p-tau levels with ACC-001, possibly consistent with a downstream effect in the ACC-001+QS-21 group. Insufficient antibody titers or quality, insufficient power to detect a difference, or too short duration of follow up may be reasons why a statistically significant response was not observed.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Ketter, N., Liu, E., Di, J., Honig, L. S., Lu, M., Novak, G., et al. (2016). A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 2 Study of the Effects of the Vaccine Vanutide Cridificar with QS-21 Adjuvant on Immunogenicity, Safety and Amyloid Imaging in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer's Disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2016.118

Vancouver

Ketter N, Liu E, Di J, Honig LS, Lu M, Novak G, et al. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 2 Study of the Effects of the Vaccine Vanutide Cridificar with QS-21 Adjuvant on Immunogenicity, Safety and Amyloid Imaging in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer's Disease. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2016. doi:10.14283/jpad.2016.118. PMID: 29199321.

BibTeX

@article{ketter2016-29199321,
  author  = {Ketter, N. and Liu, E. and Di, J. and Honig, L. S. and Lu, M. and Novak, G. and Werth, J. and LePrince Leterme, G. and others},
  title   = {{A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 2 Study of the Effects of the Vaccine Vanutide Cridificar with QS-21 Adjuvant on Immunogenicity, Safety and Amyloid Imaging in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer's Disease}},
  journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.14283/jpad.2016.118},
  pmid    = {29199321},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2016.118}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Measurements Primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 104 in cerebral amyloid burden as measured by the global cortical average (GCA) standard value uptake ratio (SUVR) based on the brain 18F-florbetapir PET composite cortical SUVR between each ACC-001+QS-21 dose compared with placebo.
Results Of 126 randomized patients (placebo: 40; ACC-001 3 µg+QS-21: 43; and ACC-001 10 µg+QS-21: 43), 125 received study treatment; 92 (73%) completed the study.
Change in 18F-florbetapir PET GCA SUVR, was not significantly different between either of the two ACC-001+QS-21 treatment groups and placebo (3 μg +QS-21 vs. placebo diff=-0.03, p=0.54; 10 μg +QS-21 vs. placebo diff=-0.08, p=0.07), but the trend was numerically consistent with a dose response.
The vMRI showed statistically significant faster treatment-related decrease in brain volume in the 10 μg group but was not significant in the 3 μg group, compared with placebo (3 μg diff =-1.3 mL/year, p=0.50; 10 μg diff=-4.2 mL/year, p=0.02).
Conclusions Primary biomarker efficacy endpoints were not statistically significant in either dose group.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designclinical trial
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 47/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	2 / 2	Randomized and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29199321)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	27 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100.
Total	47 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments

Also tagged “monoclonal”

332 studies in the library carry the topic tag “monoclonal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 332 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →