The effectiveness of NEURACEQ was evaluated in two single-arm clinical studies (i.e., Studies 1 and 2) in subjects with a range of cognitive function, including some end-of-life subjects who had agreed to participate in a postmortem brain donation program as well as healthy subjects. Subjects underwent a NEURACEQ injection and scan. Images were interpreted using a clinically applicable binary image interpretation method (negative or positive) by independent readers blinded to all clinical information
[see Dosage and Administration (
2.4
)]. Before image interpretation, all readers underwent either in-person or electronic media training on image interpretation.
The truth standard was based on the histopathologic examination using Bielschowsky silver staining (BSS) of six brain regions assessed by a pathology consensus panel blinded to all clinical information (including PET scan results). NEURACEQ results (negative or positive) were pre-specified to correspond with specific histopathology-derived plaque density scores, based upon a modification of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimers Disease (CERAD) criteria, which use neuritic plaque counts as a necessary pathological feature of AD (Table 6). For the subject-level truth standard, if any of the six regions were scored as more than sparse, the subject was classified as positive; if none of the regions were assessed as being more than sparse, the subject was classified as negative.
Table 6: Categorization of Histopathology and NEURACEQ PET ReadHistopathology Categorization | NEURACEQ PET Read |
Neuritic Plaque Counts | CERAD Score |
<1 | None | Negative |
1-5 | Sparse |
6-19 | Moderate | Positive |
>20
| Frequent |
Study 1 evaluated performance characteristics (sensitivity and specificity) in subjects who died during the study by comparing premortem NEURACEQ PET images to a postmortem truth standard of amyloid beta neuritic plaque density. A total of 205 subjects were dosed with NEURACEQ and imaged. The mean age was 77 years (range 48 to 98 years) and 52% of the subjects were male. By medical history, 137 subjects had AD, 31 had other non-AD dementia, 5 had dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and 32 had no clinical evidence of dementia. Among the imaged subjects, 82 subjects died during the study and were included in the primary analysis. The time interval between the NEURACEQ scan and death was less than one year for 45 subjects, between one and two years for 23 subjects, and more than two years for 14 subjects. At autopsy, the subject-level brain amyloid beta neuritic plaque density category was frequent (n = 31), moderate (n = 21), sparse (n = 17), or none (n = 13). Three readers, after undergoing in-person training, interpreted images from the 82 autopsied subjects. Five independent, blinded readers underwent electronic media training and assessed images from the same 82 end-of-life subjects.
Study 2 evaluated inter-reader and intra-reader reproducibility of image interpretation using images from subjects with a truth standard (60 subjects who participated in Study 1) and subjects without a truth standard (50 subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 139 subjects with AD, 30 subjects with other non-AD dementias/disease, 5 subjects with Parkinsons disease (PD), and 170 healthy subjects). Intra-reader reproducibility was assessed with images from 46 subjects (10%). Among the 454 subjects, the mean age was 71 years (range 22 to 98 years), 193 were females, and 353 were White. Readers underwent electronic media training.
Among subjects who underwent autopsy (n=82; 52 positive and 30 negative based on histopathology), the sensitivity using the majority interpretation of the in-person trained readers (three readers) was 96.2% (95% CI: 86.8%, 99.5%) and specificity was 80.0% (95% CI: 61.4% to 92.3%). The Sensitivity of the readers trained using electronic media (five readers) was 96.2% (95% CI: 86.8%, 99.5%) and specificity was 76.7% (95% CI: 57.7% to 90.1%). The median (and range) of correct, false negative, and false positive reads were 71 (65 to 73), 2 (0 to 5), 7 (6 to 16), respectively, for electronic media training; and were 75 (74, 75), 1 (1, 2), 6 (5, 7), respectively, for in-person training.
Table 7 shows the inter-reader reproducibility for various subject groups in Study 2
a. Inter-reader agreement analyses across all five readers showed an overall Fleiss kappa statistic of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.83), which met the pre-specified success criterion (95% CI lower bound > 0.60). The percentage of intra-reader agreement for the five readers ranged from 91% to 98%.
Table 7: Inter-Reader Reproducibility of NEURACEQ PET Read Results for Various Subject Groups in Study 2Subject Group by Cognitive Status and Truth Standard (TS) | Positive Scans, n
b
| Kappa (95% CI) | Percent of Scans with Inter-Reader Agreement |
3 of 5 readers agreed | 4 of 5 readers agreed | 5 of 5 readers agreed |
All subjects, n=454 | 212 | 0.80 (0.77, 0.83) | 6 | 15 | 78 |
Subjects with TS, n=60 | 37 | 0.75 (0.67, 0.83) | 10 | 15 | 75 |
Subjects without TS, n=394 | 175 | 0.80 (0.77, 0.83) | 6 | 15 | 79 |
AD, n=176 (37 with TS; 139 no TS) | 139 | 0.77 (0.72, 0.81) | 7 | 10 | 83 |
MCI without TS, n=50 | 28 | 0.84 (0.75, 0.92) | 0 | 20 | 80 |
Other non-AD dementia
c,
n=40 (5 with TS; 35 no TS) | 18 | 0.65 (0.55, 0.74) | 8 | 33 | 60 |
Healthy subjects, n=188 (18 with TS; 170 no TS) | 26 | 0.55 (0.49, 0.58) | 7 | 15 | 77 |
aReaders who underwent electronic media training.
bShown is the median number of scans interpreted as positive across the five readers for each group of subjects listed in the first column.
cOther non-AD dementia includes dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), fronto-temporal lobe dementia, vascular dementia, and dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD).