Search

Drug development for Alzheimer disease and other neurodegenerative dementias, including frontotemporal dementia, has experienced a long history of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that failed to show efficacy of investigational drugs. Despite differences in clinical and behavioral characteristics, these disorders have shared pathologies and face common challenges in designing early-phase trials that are predictive of late-stage success. Here, we discuss exploratory clinical trials in neurodegenerative dementias. These are generally phase 1b or phase 2a trials that are designed to assess pharmacologic effects and rely on biomarker outcomes, with shorter treatment durations and fewer patients than traditional phase 2 studies. Exploratory trials can establish go/no-go decision points, support proof of concept and dose selection, and terminate drugs that fail to show target engagement with suitable exposure and acceptable safety profiles. Early failure saves valuable resources including opportunity costs. This is especially important for programs in academia and small biotechnology companies but may be applied to high-risk projects in large pharmaceutical companies to achieve proof of concept more rapidly at lower costs than traditional approaches. Exploratory studies in a staged clinical development program may provide promising data to warrant the substantial resources needed to advance compounds through late-stage development. To optimize the design and application of exploratory trials, the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation and the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration convened an advisory panel to provide recommendations on outcome measures and statistical considerations for these types of studies and study designs that can improve efficiency in clinical development.

Demonstrating that treatments are clinically meaningful across the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum is critical for meeting our goals of accelerating a cure by 2025. While this topic has been a focus of several Alzheimer’s Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meetings, there remains no consensus as to what constitutes a “clinically meaningful outcome” in the eyes of patients, clinicians, care partners, policymakers, payers, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the field has not come to agreement as to what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect at each stage of disease severity. The AARR meeting on November 19–20, 2019, reviewed current approaches to defining clinical meaningfulness from various perspectives including those of patients and care partners, clinicians, regulators, health economists, and public policymakers. Participants discussed approaches that may confer clinical relevance at each stage of the disease continuum and fostered discussion about what should guide us in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article reviews measures of Alzheimer''s disease (AD) progression in relation to patient dependence and offers a unifying conceptual framework for dependence in AD. Clinicians typically characterize AD by symptomatic impairments in three domains: cognition, function, and behavior. From a patient''s perspective, changes in these domains, individually and in concert, ultimately lead to increased dependence and loss of autonomy. Examples of dependence in AD range from a need for reminders (early AD) to requiring safety supervision and assistance with basic functions (late AD). Published literature has focused on the clinical domains as somewhat separate constructs and has given limited attention to the concept of patient dependence as a descriptor of AD progression. This article presents the concept of dependence on others for care needs as a potential method for translating the effect of changes in cognition, function, and behavior into a more holistic, transparent description of AD progression. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This article describes the development of the protocol for the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Alzheimer's disease trial, which was developed in collaboration with the National Institute of Mental Health to assess the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics for psychosis and/or agitation occurring in outpatients with Alzheimer's disease. The article provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the trial as well as the clinical outcomes and effectiveness measures incorporated into it, discussing the most salient issues encountered in developing the design of the trial, as well as the unique features of the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: This paper provides a case study of ‘reverse translational research’, in which empirical clinical trials focused on relieving psychopathological symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) ultimately led to mechanism-based trials addressing aspects of the underlying pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease. AD is multi-dimensional in nature, characterized not only by cognitive and functional decline but by neuropsychiatric symptoms that develop commonly and are associated with considerable morbidity. There have been a large number of empirical trials of various pharmacological agents to reduce these symptoms, such as agitation. Although antipsychotics are used most frequently for agitation, the usual effect size is modest, and there is a range of tolerability and/or safety issues, leading to the hope that alternatives can be found. Furthermore, most clinical trials addressing psychopathology have not been mechanism-based and none have attempted an alternative approach, namely, to delay or prevent the emergence of psychopathology. Findings: The evidence of clinical trials is reviewed regarding the safety, tolerability, and apparent efficacy of the mood stabilizers carbamazepine and valproate for agitation associated with AD. Possible mechanisms of action of valproate are reviewed, leading to the surprising conclusion that neuroprotective properties may account for some of its clinical effects. These mechanisms (including activation of wnt-dependent signaling and upregulation of bcl-2, among others) may be particularly relevant for long-term treatment of AD. Conclusions: These clinical and mechanistic findings were combined in the development of a novel clinical trial examining whether chronic valproate therapy can attenuate the clinical progression of AD, which will be implemented by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. The design addresses valproate’s potential to delay or prevent the onset of agitation in patients lacking agitation to begin with, as well as to slow progressive decline in cognition and daily functioning. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]