Search

ObjectiveTo determine whether patients randomized to unapproved, disease-modifying interventions in neurodegenerative disease trials have better outcomes than patients randomized to placebo by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk and benefit experienced by patients in randomized placebo-controlled trials testing investigational treatments for Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for results of randomized trials testing non–Food and Drug Administration–approved, putatively disease-modifying interventions from January 2005 to May 2018. Trial characteristics were double-extracted. Coprimary endpoints were the treatment advantage over placebo on efficacy (standardized mean difference in outcomes) and safety (risk ratios of serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events), calculated with random effects meta-analyses. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018103798).ResultsWe included 113 trials (n = 39,875 patients). There was no significant efficacy advantage associated with assignment to putatively disease-modifying interventions compared to placebo for Alzheimer disease (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.07 to 0.01), Parkinson disease (SMD −0.09, 95% CI −0.32 to 0.15), ALS (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.30), or Huntington disease (0.02, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.31). Patients with Alzheimer disease assigned to active treatment were at higher risk of experiencing serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.27) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.21–1.70).ConclusionsAssignment to active treatment was not beneficial for any of the indications examined and may have been slightly disadvantageous for patients with Alzheimer disease. Our findings suggest that patients with neurodegenerative diseases are not, on the whole, harmed by assignment to placebo when participating in trials.