Citations

This article focuses on the effects of operational differences in case ascertainment on estimates of prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer type. Experience and insights are discussed by investigators from the Framingham Heart Study, the East Boston Senior Health Project, the Chicago Health and Aging Project, the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. There is a general consensus that the single most important factor determining prevalence estimates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the severity of cognitive impairment used as a threshold to define cases. Studies that require a level of cognitive impairment in which persons are unable to provide self‐care will have much lower estimates than the studies aimed at identifying persons in the earliest stages of AD. There are limited autopsy data from the aforementioned epidemiological studies to address accuracy in the diagnosis of etiological subtype, namely the specification of AD alone or in combination with other types of pathology. However, other community‐based cohort studies show that many persons with mild cognitive impairment and also some persons without dementia or mild cognitive impairment meet pathological criteria for AD, thereby suggesting that the number of persons who would benefit from an effective secondary prevention intervention is probably higher than the published prevalence estimates. Improved accuracy in the clinical diagnosis of AD is anticipated with the addition of molecular and structural biomarkers in the next generation of epidemiological studies.

Abstract Purpose: This phase I study was undertaken to define the maximum tolerated dose, safety, and pharmacokinetic profile of CP-751,871. Experimental Design: Using a rapid dose escalation design, patients with advanced nonhematologic malignancies were treated with CP-751,871 in four dose escalation cohorts. CP-751,871 was administered i.v. on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Pharmacokinetic evaluation was done in all treatment cohorts during cycles 1 and 4. Results: Twenty-four patients received 110 cycles at four dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose exceeded the maximal feasible dose of 20 mg/kg and, thus, was not identified. Treatment-related toxicities were generally mild. The most common adverse events were hyperglycemia, anorexia, nausea, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, elevated γ-glutamyltransferase, diarrhea, hyperuracemia, and fatigue. At 20 mg/kg, 10 of 15 patients experienced stability of disease. Two of these patients experienced long-term stability. There were no objective responses. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed a dose-dependent increase in CP-751,871 exposure and ∼2-fold accumulation on repeated dosing in 21-day cycles. Plasma concentrations of CP-751,871 attained were several log-fold greater than the biologically active concentration. Treatment with CP-751,871 increased serum insulin and human growth hormone levels, with modest increases in serum glucose levels. Conclusions: CP-751,871 has a favorable safety profile and was well tolerated when given in continuous cycles. At the maximal feasible dose of 20 mg/kg, there was a moderate accumulation in plasma exposure, and most of the treated patients experienced stability of disease.