×

Academic Intelligence · Curated Daily

Explore the Frontier of Global Academia

AcademicHub aggregates real-time literature from top journals and preprint platforms. Build your personal research radar and let large language models compile cross-disciplinary analysis briefings automatically.

Authors: Mounie ×
Shuffle
01.
medRxiv (Medicine) 2026-06-24

Study partner profile effects on CDR-SB change in anti-amyloid therapy evaluation

INTRODUCTION: The Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), a primary outcome in anti-amyloid therapy (AAT) trials, integrates information from participants and study partners. CDR-SB scores may vary by study partner characteristics, but their impact on 18-month change interpretation remains unclear. METHODS: Using the NACC Uniform Data Set, we fitted linear mixed-effects calibration models in an Alzheimer's disease (AD)-primary early symptomatic cohort and propagated study partner-associated coefficients through Monte Carlo simulations. We estimated components of 18-month CDR-SB change under observed profile changes, simulated follow-up imbalance in a common female living-with profile, and tipping-point scenarios. Analyses were repeated in amyloid-positive and trial-like cohorts. RESULTS: The AD-primary cohort included 15,061 participants and 7,683 baseline-to-18-month pairs. Observed profile changes generated a negligible cohort-level component (mean 0.0014 points, 95% simulation interval 0.0006 to 0.0022). Simulated follow-up imbalance generated differences of 0.014 to 0.071 points across 10% to 50% reassignment. Under the primary calibration model, generating a 0.45-point difference, equal to the reported Clarity AD CDR-SB group difference, required median net imbalance >100% and was feasible in 48% of iterations. Amyloid-positive and trial-like cohorts had lower median tipping points but wider intervals, reflecting coefficient imprecision. DISCUSSION: In the large AD-primary cohort, observed study partner profile changes and simulated follow-up imbalance generated CDR-SB differences that were small relative to the 0.45-point Clarity AD benchmark. Biomarker-confirmed estimates were less stable because of coefficient imprecision. These findings suggest limited impact under typical AD-primary conditions but support systematic study partner profile collection and sensitivity analyses in observational and external-comparator CDR-SB studies for AAT evaluation.

02.
medRxiv (Medicine) 2026-06-22

The impact of changes in age-based eligibility criteria on seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in England between 2019 and 2024: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives: To examine changes in seasonal influenza vaccine uptake among clinical risk groups over periods of differing age-based eligibility. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Individuals in England registered in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum. Participants: Between 1,239,802 (2019/20) and 1,289,330 (2023/24) individuals aged 40-69 years in clinical risk groups. Interventions: Natural experiment involving temporary expansion of age-based eligibility for influenza vaccination to include 50-64-year-olds from 2020/21 to 2022/23. Main outcome measures: Influenza vaccine uptake from 1st September to 28th February, incidence rate ratio (IRR) of vaccine uptake across consecutive seasons within age groups, and the ratio of IRRs between age groups. Results: Influenza vaccine uptake increased in all age groups in 2020/21 relative to 2019/20. The increase was larger in individuals aged 50-64 years (13.3%; IRR 1.50, 95% CI 1.50-1.51) compared with those aged 40-49 years (8.3%; IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.34-1.35) and 65-69 years (6.8%; IRR 1.34, 95% CI 1.33-1.35). From 2020/21 to 2022/23, vaccine uptake decreased, with a more pronounced decline among those aged 40-49 years (-5.4%) compared with age-eligible groups (50-64 years: -3.0%; 65-69 years: -3.1%). The reversion of age eligibility in 2023/24 was associated with a larger decrease in uptake among those aged 50-64 years (-9.6% vs 2022/23; IRR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.79-0.79) compared with those aged 40-49 years (-4.9%; IRR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.87-0.88) and 65-69 years (-3.3%; IRR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.97). Patterns were broadly consistent across clinical risk groups. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic saw a general increase in seasonal influenza vaccine uptake in clinical risk groups. This increase was larger and more sustained in 50-64 year-olds who had also become eligible based on age. Our findings highlight the potential gains in vaccine coverage among clinical risk groups based on expanded age-based eligibility.