Neuropsychological, Psychiatric, and Functional Correlates of Clinical Trial Enrollment

  • Dustin B. HammersEmail author
  • N. L. Foster
  • J. M. Hoffman
  • T. H. Greene
  • K. Duff
Short Communication


Screen failure rates in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical trial research are unsustainable, with participant recruitment being a top barrier to AD research progress. The purpose of this project was to understand the neuropsychological, psychiatric, and functional features of individuals who failed screening measures for AD trials. Previously collected clinical data from 38 patients (aged 50–83) screened for a specific industry-sponsored clinical trial of MCI/early AD (Biogen 221AD302, [EMERGE]) were analyzed to identify predictors of AD trial screen pass/fail status. Worse performance on non-memory cognitive domains like crystalized knowledge, executive functioning, and attention, and higher self-reported anxiety, was associated with failing the screening visit for the EMERGE AD clinical trial, whereas we were not able to detect a relationship between screening status and memory performance, self-reported depression, or self-reported daily functioning. By identifying predictors of AD trial screen passing/failure, this research may influence decision-making about which patients are most likely to successfully enroll in a trial, thereby potentially lowering participant burden, maximizing study resources, and reducing costs.

Key words

Cognition Alzheimer’s disease mild cognitive impairment clinical trial 




Funding: Funding for this project was provided by University of Utah Center for Alzheimer’s Care, Imaging and Research.

Ethical standards: This study was conducted according to the University of Utah’s standards for Ethical Research. All procedures for the current study received approval by the University’s Institutional Review Board.


  1. 1.
    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. Alzheimer’s & dementia 2016;12:1113–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper C, Ketley D, Livingston G. Systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate potential recruitment to dementia intervention studies. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2014;29:515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Treves TA, Verchovsky R, Klimovitsky S, Korczyn AD. Recruitment rate to drug trials for dementia of the Alzheimer type. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 2000;14:209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grill JD, Karlawish J. Study partners should be required in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 2017;9:93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson JL, Ryan L, Silverberg N, Cahan V, Bernard MA. Obstacles and opportunities in Alzheimer’s clinical trial recruitment. Health Aff (Millwood) 2014;33:574–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aisen P, Touchon J, Amariglio R, et al. EU/US/CTAD Task Force: Lessons Learned from Recent and Current Alzheimer’s Prevention Trials. The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease 2017;4:116–124.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitzpatrick AL, Fried LP, Williamson J, et al. Recruitment of the elderly into a pharmacologic prevention trial: the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study experience. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2006;27:541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grill JD, Monsell SE. Choosing Alzheimer’s disease prevention clinical trial populations. Neurobiology of Aging 2014;35:466–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US National Library of Medicine: 221AD302 Phase 3 Study of Aducanumab (BIIB037) in Early Alzheimer’s Disease (EMERGE) [online]. Available at:
  10. 10.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research 1975;12:189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 1998;20:310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993;43:2412–2414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lezak M, Howieson D, Loring D. Neuropsychological Assessment, 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    George, D, Mallery, P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 17.0 Update. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tabachnick B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2013.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Callahan BL, Ramirez J, Berezuk C, Duchesne S, Black SE. Predicting Alzheimer’s disease development: a comparison of cognitive criteria and associated neuroimaging biomarkers. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy 2015;7:68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Burke SL, Cadet T, Alcide A, O’Driscoll J, Maramaldi P. Psychosocial risk factors and Alzheimer’s disease: the associative effect of depression, sleep disturbance, and anxiety. Aging Ment Health 2017:1–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gomar JJ, Bobes-Bascaran MT, Conejero-Goldberg C, Davies P, Goldberg TE, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging I. Utility of combinations of biomarkers, cognitive markers, and risk factors to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer disease in patients in the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011;68:961–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gafvels C, Lithner F, Borjeson B. Living with diabetes: relationship to gender, duration and complications. A survey in northern Sweden. Diabet Med 1993;10:768–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Serdi and Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dustin B. Hammers
    • 1
    Email author
  • N. L. Foster
    • 1
  • J. M. Hoffman
    • 2
  • T. H. Greene
    • 3
  • K. Duff
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Alzheimer’s Care, Imaging, and Research, Department of NeurologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Center for Quantitative Cancer Imaging, Huntsman Cancer InstituteUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Study Design and Biostatistics CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations