Home › Research › Treatments
Optimal anti-amyloid-beta therapy for Alzheimer's disease via a personalized mathematical model
Wenrui Hao, Suzanne Lenhart, Jeffrey R Petrella. PLoS computational biology, 2022-09-02
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Plain-language summary
With the recent approval by the FDA of the first disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's Disease (AD), personalized medicine will be increasingly important for appropriate management and counseling of patients with AD and those at risk. The growing availability of clinical biomarker data and data-driven computational modeling techniques provide an opportunity for new approaches to individualized AD therapeutic planning. In this paper, we develop a new mathematical model, based on AD cognitive, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and MRI biomarkers, to provide a personalized optimal treatment plan for individuals. This model is parameterized by biomarker data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort, a large multi-institutional database monitoring the natural history of subjects with AD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Optimal control theory is used to incorporate time-varying treatment controls and side-effects into the model, based on recent clinical trial data, to provide a personalized treatment regimen with anti-amyloid-beta therapy. In-silico treatment studies were conducted on the approved treatment, aducanumab, as well as on another promising anti-amyloid-beta therapy under evaluation, donanemab. Clinical trial simulations were conducted over both short-term (78 weeks) and long-term (10 years) periods with low-dose (6 mg/kg) and high-dose (10 mg/kg) regimens for aducanumab, and a single-dose regimen (1400 mg) for donanemab. Results confirm those of actual clinical trials showing a large and sustained effect of both aducanumab and donanemab on amyloid beta clearance. The effect on slowing cognitive decline was modest for both treatments, but greater for donanemab. This optimal treatment computational modeling framework can be applied to other single and combination treatments for both prediction and optimization, as well as incorporate new clinical trial data as it becomes available.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Hao, W., Lenhart, S., & Petrella, J. R. (2022). Optimal anti-amyloid-beta therapy for Alzheimer's disease via a personalized mathematical model. PLoS computational biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010481
Vancouver
Hao W, Lenhart S, Petrella JR. Optimal anti-amyloid-beta therapy for Alzheimer's disease via a personalized mathematical model. PLoS computational biology. 2022. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010481. PMID: 36054214.
BibTeX
@article{hao2022-36054214,
author = {Hao, Wenrui and Lenhart, Suzanne and Petrella, Jeffrey R},
title = {{Optimal anti-amyloid-beta therapy for Alzheimer's disease via a personalized mathematical model}},
journal = {PLoS computational biology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010481},
pmid = {36054214},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010481}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results confirm those of actual clinical trials showing a large and sustained effect of both aducanumab and donanemab on amyloid beta clearance.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded 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, multicenter collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PLoS computational biology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 36054214) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 25 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments from nearby years
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.