How should future clinical trials be designed in the search for disease-modifying therapies for Parkinson's disease?

INTRODUCTION

Although there has been substantial progress in research and innovations in symptomatic treatments, similar success has not been achieved in disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for Parkinson's disease (PD). Considering the enormous motor, psychosocial and financial burden associated with PD, safe and effective DMT is of paramount importance.

AREAS COVERED

One of the reasons for the lack of progress in DMT for PD is poor or inappropriate design of clinical trials. In the first part of the article, the authors focus on the plausible reasons why the previous trials have failed and in the latter part, they provide their perspectives on future DMT trials.

EXPERT OPINION

There are several potential reasons why previous trials have failed, including broad clinical and etiopathogenic heterogeneity of PD, poor definition and documentation of target engagement, lack of appropriate biomarkers and outcome measures, and short duration of follow-up. To address these deficiencies, future trials may consider- (i) a more customized approach to select the most suitable participants and therapeutic approaches, (ii) explore combination therapies that would target multiple pathogenetic mechanisms, and (iii) moving beyond targeting only motor symptoms to also assessing non-motor features of PD in well-designed longitudinal studies.

Neuroprotective Effects of Intermittent Theta Burst Stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease (NET-PD): A Study Protocol for a Delayed-Start Randomized Double-Blind Sham-Controlled Trial

Background: As a typical high-disability neurodegenerative disease, Parkinson’s disease (PD) progresses variably, and patients who are clinically insensitive to dopaminergic therapy and whose symptoms fail to improve are commonly observed. As a result, achieving early neuron protection is critical. Methods/Design: The NET-PD study is a 2-year prospective single-center, double-blind, multi-arm, delayed-start, sham-controlled clinical trial assessing the long-term neuroprotective effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) in PD patients. Patients diagnosed with PD, aged 50–80, Hoehn–Yahr stage ≤4, and who maintain medication stability during the study will be enrolled. Clinical assessment and multi-modal markers are used to clarify the clinical improvement and dynamic neuronal changes in PD patients. With a standard deviation of 2, a test level of 0.05, a dropout rate of 10%, and a degree of certainty of 0.9, 60 PD patients are required for this study. Results: The NET-PD project was funded in March 2022, data collection began in July 2022, and is currently in the recruitment phase with two PD patients already enrolled. Data collection is expected to be completed in June 2024. The results are expected for publication in December 2024. Discussion: Previous research has demonstrated a rudimentary method for assessing and delaying PD progression in clinical medication trials. The NET-PD study adopts a rigorous methodology and specific disease-modifying designs to demonstrate the neuroprotective effect of iTBS on PD and investigate the potential mechanism of iTBS in regulating brain and motor functions. We hope to provide supposition for the subsequent exploration of diverse neuroprotection methods.

Critical appraisal of arguments for the delayed-start design proposed as alternative to the parallel-group randomized clinical trial design in the field of rare disease

Background

A number of papers have proposed or evaluated the delayed-start design as an alternative to the standard two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial (RCT) design in the field of rare disease. However the discussion is felt to lack a sufficient degree of consideration devoted to the true virtues of the delayed start design and the implications either in terms of required sample-size, overall information, or interpretation of the estimate in the context of small populations.

Objectives

To evaluate whether there are real advantages of the delayed-start design particularly in terms of overall efficacy and sample size requirements as a proposed alternative to the standard parallel group RCT in the field of rare disease.

Methods

We used a real-life example to compare the delayed-start design with the standard RCT in terms of sample size requirements. Then, based on three scenarios regarding the development of the treatment effect over time, the advantages, limitations and potential costs of the delayed-start design are discussed.

Results

We clarify that delayed-start design is not suitable for drugs that establish an immediate treatment effect, but for drugs with effects developing over time, instead. In addition, the sample size will always increase as an implication for a reduced time on placebo resulting in a decreased treatment effect.

Conclusions

A number of papers have repeated well-known arguments to justify the delayed-start design as appropriate alternative to the standard parallel group RCT in the field of rare disease and do not discuss the specific needs of research methodology in this field. The main point is that a limited time on placebo will result in an underestimated treatment effect and, in consequence, in larger sample size requirements compared to those expected under a standard parallel-group design. This also impacts on benefit-risk assessment.

Unmet needs in Parkinson's disease: New horizons in a changing landscape

The success of levodopa and other classes of drugs have meant that most people with Parkinson's disease enjoy a good quality of life for many years. However, despite the availability of several drugs and formulations that can be used as monotherapy and in combination, there are a number of disease features that the current therapies are unable to address. The disease continues to progress despite treatment, patients suffer from a myriad of motor and non-motor symptoms, and a neuroprotective therapy is urgently required. To move forward with medical and surgical management, it is important to consider new insights that recent research offers and in this review we examine how a better understanding of the disease pathology and progression might improve and enrich our daily clinical practice. It is also timely to consider the service provision changes that will increasingly be needed to effectively manage the needs of the aging population.

A review of clinical trial designs used to detect a disease-modifying effect of drug therapy in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Disease-modification clinical trials in neurodegenerative disorders have struggled to separate symptomatic effects of putative agents from disease-modification. In response, a variety of clinical trial designs have been developed. A systematic review was undertaken to examine which trial designs have been used in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD) to detect disease-modifying, as opposed to symptomatic, drug effects. In addition we aimed to identify novel clinical trial designs used in the past or planned for use in the future. We aimed to critique whether the methods used would have identified true disease-modification.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL (1980-2015) were searched to identify papers meriting review in full. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify unpublished or planned randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs in PD or AD which aimed to demonstrate the disease-modifying properties of drug therapy and differentiate that benefit from any symptomatic effect.

RESULTS

128 RCTs were finally included: 84 in AD (59 published, 25 unpublished); 44 in PD (36 published, 8 unpublished). A variety of clinical trial designs were applied including long-term follow-up, wash-in and wash-out analyses, randomised delayed-start, the use of time-to-event outcome measures and surrogate disease progression biomarkers. Deficiencies in each of these design strategies, the quantity of missing data in included RCTs and the methods used to deal with missing data, meant that none of the included studies convincingly demonstrated disease-modification. No truly novel clinical trial designs were identified.

CONCLUSION

We currently believe that the best clinical trial design available to demonstrate disease-modification is a long-term follow-up study, in which an examination is made for sustained divergence in outcome measures between treatment arms over the study period.

Early versus delayed initiation of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease and pathologically is characterised by a progressive loss of dopaminergic cells of the nigrostriatal pathway. Clinically, PD is mainly defined by the presence of the motor symptoms of bradykinesia, rigidity, rest tremor and postural instability, but non-motor symptoms such as depression, dementia and autonomic disturbances are recognised as integral parts of the disease. Although pharmacotherapy for PD was introduced almost 50 years ago, and has improved significantly over the intervening period, the timing of initiation of treatment in newly diagnosed PD remains controversial. While some physicians favour an early start of pharmacotherapy at or soon after diagnosis, others prefer to delay pharmacological treatment until a certain degree of disability has developed. This article aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both strategies by exploring their effects on symptoms, disease progression and quality of life. Although the data on putative disease-modifying effects of early pharmacological intervention in PD are still inconclusive, we believe that the most important indication for an early initiation of anti-parkinsonian treatment should be to maintain the quality of life of PD patients and to secure their socioeconomic status as long as possible.

Using 'dead or dependent' as an outcome measure in clinical trials in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Simple, robust, sensitive and clinically meaningful outcome measures are required for neuroprotective trials in Parkinson's disease (PD). We explored the feasibility of a composite binary outcome measure, 'dead or dependent', in such trials using data from a prospective follow-up study of an incident cohort of PD patients.

METHODS

Two hundred incident patients had an annual follow-up, including assessment of the Hoehn-Yahr stage (H-Y) and Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale (S&E). Annual scores were converted into binary variables (H-Y <3 vs H-Y ≥3, and S&E ≥80% vs S&E <80%). A new outcome of 'dead or dependent' was also created, with dependence in activities of daily living defined as S&E <80%. Using these data, sample sizes were calculated for a hypothetical three-year randomised trial in which the trial outcome was defined by a binary clinical variable, all-cause mortality, or PD-related mortality.

RESULTS

At 3 years, 18.0% of patients were dead and 38.4% were dead or dependent. At 80% power, large sample sizes were required if PD-related mortality (n=1938 per study arm) or all-cause mortality (n=734) were used as the outcome, even for large treatment effects (30% reduction in relative risk). The new outcome of 'death or dependency' required the smallest sample sizes of all the outcome measures (n=277 for 30% reduction in relative risk, 627 for a 20% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS

'Death or dependency' is a feasible and potentially useful outcome measure in PD trials of neuroprotective agents, but further work is required to validate its use and define dependency.

A systematic review of biomarkers for disease progression in Parkinson's disease

Background

Using surrogate biomarkers for disease progression as endpoints in neuroprotective clinical trials may help differentiate symptomatic effects of potential neuroprotective agents from true disease-modifying effects. A systematic review was undertaken to determine what biomarkers for disease progression in Parkinson’s disease (PD) exist.

Methods

MEDLINE and EMBASE (1950–2010) were searched using five search strategies. Abstracts were assessed to identify papers meriting review in full. Studies of participants with idiopathic PD diagnosed by formal criteria or clearly described clinical means were included. We made no restriction on age, disease duration, drug treatment, or study design. We included studies which attempted to draw associations between any tests used to investigate disease progression and any clinical measures of disease progression. The electronic search was validated by hand-searching the two journals from which most included articles came.

Results

183 studies were included: 163 (89%) cross-sectional, 20 (11%) longitudinal. The electronic search strategy had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI 51.1-86.0) and a specificity of 97.1% (95% CI 96.5-97.7). In longitudinal studies median follow-up was 2.0 years (IQR 1.1-3.5). Included studies were generally poor quality - cross-sectional with small numbers of participants, applying excessive inclusion/exclusion criteria, with flawed methodologies and simplistic statistical analyses.

Conclusion

We found insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any biomarker for disease progression in PD clinical trials, which may simply reflect the poor quality of research in this area. We therefore present a provisional ‘roadmap’ for conducting future disease progression biomarker studies, and recommend new quality criteria by which future studies may be judged.

Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice

Background

Small clinical trials are necessary when there are difficulties in recruiting enough patients for conventional frequentist statistical analyses to provide an appropriate answer. These trials are often necessary for the study of rare diseases as well as specific study populations e.g. children. It has been estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 rare diseases that cover a broad range of diseases and patients. In the European Union these diseases affect up to 30 million people, with about 50% of those affected being children. Therapies for treating these rare diseases need their efficacy and safety evaluated but due to the small number of potential trial participants, a standard randomised controlled trial is often not feasible. There are a number of alternative trial designs to the usual parallel group design, each of which offers specific advantages, but they also have specific limitations. Thus the choice of the most appropriate design is not simple.

Methods

PubMed was searched to identify publications about the characteristics of different trial designs that can be used in randomised, comparative small clinical trials. In addition, the contents tables from 11 journals were hand-searched. An algorithm was developed using decision nodes based on the characteristics of the identified trial designs.

Results

We identified 75 publications that reported the characteristics of 12 randomised, comparative trial designs that can be used in for the evaluation of therapies in orphan diseases. The main characteristics and the advantages and limitations of these designs were summarised and used to develop an algorithm that may be used to help select an appropriate design for a given clinical situation. We used examples from publications of given disease-treatment-outcome situations, in which the investigators had used a particular trial design, to illustrate the use of the algorithm for the identification of possible alternative designs.

Conclusions

The algorithm that we propose could be a useful tool for the choice of an appropriate trial design in the development of orphan drugs for a given disease-treatment-outcome situation.

Controversies in neurology: why monoamine oxidase B inhibitors could be a good choice for the initial treatment of Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Early initiation of pharmacotherapy in Parkinson's disease (PD) is nowadays widely advocated by experts since the delay of treatment has shown to be associated with a significant deterioration of health related quality of life in affected patients. Due to marked advances in PD treatment during the last decades, physicians are nowadays fortunately equipped with a variety of substances that can effectively ameliorate emerging motor symptoms of the disease, among them levodopa, dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitors. Despite numerous drug intervention trials in early PD, there is however still ongoing controversy among neurologists which substance to use for the initial treatment of the disease.

DISCUSSION

In multiple studies, MAO-B inhibitors, such as selegiline and rasagiline, have shown to provide mild symptomatic effects, delay the need for levodopa, and to reduce the incidence of motor fluctuations. Although their symptomatic efficacy is inferior compared to dopamine agonists and levodopa, MAO-B inhibitors undoubtedly have fewer side effects and are easy to administer. In contrary to their competitors, MAO-B inhibitors may furthermore offer a chance for disease modification, which so far remains a major unmet need in the management of PD and eventually makes them ideal candidates for the early treatment of the disease.

SUMMARY

MAO-B inhibitors may constitute a preferable therapeutic option for early PD, mainly due to their favourable safety profile and their putative neuroprotective capabilities. Since the symptomatic effects of MAO-B inhibitors are comparatively mild, dopamine agonists and levodopa should however be considered for initial treatment in those PD patients, in whom robust and immediate symptomatic relief needs to be prioritized.

Defining disease-modifying therapies for PD--a road map for moving forward

A disease-modifying therapy that slows or stops disease progression is one of the major unmet needs in the management of Parkinson's disease. To date, no therapy has been approved for disease modification despite promising laboratory data and positive results in clinical trials. This is because confounding symptomatic or pharmacologic effects cannot be excluded. The delayed start study provides an opportunity to define therapies that provide benefit that cannot be explained by an early symptomatic effect alone. However, this trial design does not necessarily provide a meaningful measure of the effect of the intervention on cumulative disability. In contrast, the long-term simple study provides a measure of the effect of the drug on cumulative disability but does not address mechanism of action. Together these two trials provide a road map for defining a disease modifying drug and determining the long term cumulative effect of the drug on the disease.

Comparative effectiveness research: Policy context, methods development and research infrastructure

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has received substantial attention as a potential approach for improving health outcomes while lowering costs of care, and for improving the relevance and quality of clinical and health services research. The Institute of Medicine defines CER as 'the conduct and synthesis of systematic research comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions. The purpose of this research is to inform patients, providers, and decision-makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.' Improving the methods and infrastructure for CER will require sustained attention to the following issues: (1) Meaningful involvement of patients, consumers, clinicians, payers, and policymakers in key phases of CER study design and implementation; (2) Development of methodological 'best practices' for the design of CER studies that reflect decision-maker needs and balance internal validity with relevance, feasibility and timeliness; and (3) Improvements in research infrastructure to enhance the validity and efficiency with which CER studies are implemented. The approach to addressing each of these issues should be informed by the understanding that the primary purpose of CER is to help health care decision makers make informed clinical and health policy decisions.

Clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases: the challenges and the future

Neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease represent a crucial and exponentially increasing challenge to health care systems throughout the world. There is an urgent need for effective treatments that will both delay their onset and slow their inexorable progression. Many obstacles stand in the way of realizing these goals. It is expected that future advances will have a major impact on how and when the diagnosis will be made. It is hoped that these will eventually make it possible to initiate effective disease-modifying therapies long before the neurodegenerative process becomes established and symptomatic.

Long-term efficacy of rasagiline in early Parkinson's disease

This study was designed to follow the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rasagiline for Parkinson's disease (PD) with data collected from all patients who had ever taken rasagiline during the 12-month TEMPO monotherapy trial (N = 398) and subsequent open-label extension. Patients were followed for up to 6.5 years with a mean of 3.5 +/- 2.1 years. After 12 months, additional PD medications were added as required. Of patients remaining in the trial at 2 years, 46% were maintained on rasagiline monotherapy. The majority of patients received a dopamine agonist prior to levodopa as the first additional dopaminergic agent. Analysis using a Kaplan-Meier method indicated that by 5.4 years only 25% of patients progressed to Hoehn & Yahr stage III. Rasagiline was well tolerated, with 11.3% of patients (45/398) withdrawing because of an adverse event. Rasagiline therapy for PD was effective, well tolerated, and safe in this long-term trial.

Trials of neuroprotective therapies for Parkinson's disease: problems and limitations

Since the initial results of the DATATOP study, considerable effort has been devoted over the past 20 years to test neuroprotective therapies for Parkinson's disease (PD). Two trials (CALM-PD-CIT and REAL-PET studies) used neuroimaging dopamine changes as a surrogate marker for PD progression, and concluded that pramipexole and ropinirole could have a neuroprotective effect compared to levodopa. However, it should be recognized that all the presynaptic dopamine markers currently available for SPECT and PET studies are potentially subject to regulatory changes. Consequently, the results of these two trials can also be interpreted in terms of drug-related differences in dopamine regulation. More recently, the delayed-start design was applied to test whether rasagiline could have a neuroprotective effect in PD (ADAGIO study). Unfortunately, a major limitation of the delayed-start design is that, whenever the active treatment has a symptomatic effect, the blinding can be broken. This can lead to unequally-distributed placebo responses during phase 2, and is also a potential source of raters' biases. None of the trials on neuroprotective therapies for PD has yet provided solid evidence for neuroprotection.

A double-blind, delayed-start trial of rasagiline in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

A therapy that slows disease progression is the major unmet need in Parkinson's disease.

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, we examined the possibility that rasagiline has disease-modifying effects in Parkinson's disease. A total of 1176 subjects with untreated Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned to receive rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 72 weeks (the early-start group) or placebo for 36 weeks followed by rasagiline (at a dose of either 1 mg or 2 mg per day) for 36 weeks (the delayed-start group). To determine a positive result with either dose, the early-start treatment group had to meet each of three hierarchical end points of the primary analysis based on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, a 176-point scale, with higher numbers indicating more severe disease): superiority to placebo in the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36, superiority to delayed-start treatment in the change in the score between baseline and week 72, and noninferiority to delayed-start treatment in the rate of change in the score between weeks 48 and 72.

RESULTS

Early-start treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day met all end points in the primary analysis: a smaller mean (+/-SE) increase (rate of worsening) in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36 (0.09+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.14+/-0.01 points per week in the placebo group, P=0.01), less worsening in the score between baseline and week 72 (2.82+/-0.53 points in the early-start group vs. 4.52+/-0.56 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.02), and noninferiority between the two groups with respect to the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 48 and 72 (0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the early-start group vs. 0.085+/-0.02 points per week in the delayed-start group, P<0.001). All three end points were not met with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day, since the change in the UPDRS score between baseline and week 72 was not significantly different in the two groups (3.47+/-0.50 points in the early-start group and 3.11+/-0.50 points in the delayed-start group, P=0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 1 mg per day provided benefits that were consistent with a possible disease-modifying effect, but early treatment with rasagiline at a dose of 2 mg per day did not. Because the two doses were associated with different outcomes, the study results must be interpreted with caution. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256204.)

Clinical neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease - still waiting for the breakthrough

Recent research in the pharmacotherapy of Parkinson's disease (PD) has been able to provide numerous agents for the symptomatic control of motor impairments, but has failed to identify substances capable to slow down or even halt the progression of the disease. In the absence of disease-modifying therapies, affected patients develop marked disability within some years after the onset of motor symptoms, which can be alleviated but eventually not prevented with currently available medical and surgical therapies. Despite promising results from preclinical studies, outcomes of clinical neuroprotection trials have been repeatedly disappointing, which calls for a review of our approach to this topic. This article attempts to explain the need for neuroprotective therapies in PD, discusses results and limitations of previous clinical trials and provides some food for thought for the future research of neuroprotection in PD. Previous experiences from neuroprotection studies may have been discouraging, but also teach us some important lessons for the next generation of preclinical and clinical trials. Firstly, our currently used animal models for PD need to be refined in order to more reliably predict the efficacy of putative neuroprotective agents in subsequent clinical studies. Furthermore, changes in the methodology and design of future neuroprotection trials are required in order to exclude an impact of confounding symptomatic effects on observations. Finally, coordination and concentration of future research on the most promising agents will be necessary in order to accelerate the search for neuroprotective therapies in PD. Just as the pathogenesis of the disease is manifold, it may be this multilateral approach that eventually leads us to a breakthrough in finding neuroprotective agents for PD, if they exist.

Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease is a common progressive bradykinetic disorder that can be accurately diagnosed. It is characterised by the presence of severe pars-compacta nigral-cell loss, and accumulation of aggregated alpha-synuclein in specific brain stem, spinal cord, and cortical regions. The main known risk factor is age. Susceptibility genes including alpha-synuclein, leucine rich repeat kinase 2 (LRRK-2), and glucocerebrosidase (GBA) have shown that genetic predisposition is another important causal factor. Dopamine replacement therapy considerably reduces motor handicap, and effective treatment of associated depression, pain, constipation, and nocturnal difficulties can improve quality of life. Embryonic stem cells and gene therapy are promising research therapeutic approaches.

Why have we failed to achieve neuroprotection in Parkinson's disease?

The development of a neuroprotective therapy that slows, stops, or reverses neurodegeneration in Parkinson's disease (PD) is the single most important unresolved issue in the management of this disorder. Current therapies provide effective control of symptoms, particularly in the early stages of the disease, but disease progression is associated with the development of "nondopaminergic" features such as postural instability, falling, and dementia that are not adequately controlled with existing medications. There are many promising candidate neuroprotective agents based on pathological and laboratory studies, but to date, it has not been possible to determine that any drug has a disease-modifying effect in PD. Obstacles to the development of a neuroprotective therapy in PD include: (1) uncertainty as to the precise cause of cell death in PD and what to target; (2) the lack of an animal model of PD that precisely reflects the etiopathogenesis of the disease, the pattern of dopaminergic and nondopaminergic pathology, and its chronic, progressive nature; (3) determination of the correct dose to use in clinical trials; and (4) delineation of a clinical end point that is an accurate measure of the underlying disease and is not confounded by potential symptomatic effects of a study intervention. New developments in understanding the cause of the disease, in the development of animal models of PD, and in clinical trial methodology will hopefully hasten the resolution of these problems.

Orally disintegrating selegiline for the treatment of Parkinson's disease

The selective monoamine oxidase type B inhibitor selegiline is commonly administered as medical treatment to patients suffering from Parkinson's disease. The clinical value of conventional selegiline is, however, compromised by extensive first-pass metabolism, which reduces its bioavailability and leads to the production of possibly harmful methamfetamine metabolites. This review aims to evaluate a novel, orally disintegrating formulation of selegiline by examining scientific evidence from previous pharmacological and clinical studies. As a result of improved bioavailability, orally disintegrating selegiline can be administered at lower doses than conventional selegiline with similar clinical effect. It also leads to less variable selegiline blood concentrations and produces significantly less methamfetamine metabolites. We conclude that this novel formulation offers an interesting treatment option, especially for patients who report adverse events after initial treatment with conventional selegiline or who suffer from swallowing difficulties.