Global issues in drug development for Alzheimer's disease

Comparisons between traditional medicines and pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical evidence for traditional medicines (TMs) used in East Asia on measures of cognition in Alzheimer disease, determine the effect sizes at different time points for the TMs and pharmacotherapies, and assess the tolerability of the TMs.

METHODS

We searched 12 databases in English, Chinese, and Japanese for eligible randomised controlled trials that compared orally administered TMs with pharmacotherapy and reported cognitive outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale and/or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate treatment effects.

RESULTS

Thirty randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine compared TMs with donepezil. Single studies provided comparisons with galantamine, rivastigmine, or memantine. There were no significant differences between the TM and donepezil groups at 12 or 24 weeks for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale or MMSE. Improvements over baseline were significant for MMSE at 12 and 24 weeks within the TM and donepezil groups and remained significant at 1 year. Effect sizes were reduced in the 3 double-blind studies. At 24 weeks, donepezil 10 mg/d generally produced greater improvements in MMSE than 5 mg/d. Tolerability reporting was incomplete and inconsistent between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested that the clinical benefits of the TMs were not less than donepezil at comparable time points, with both groups showing improvements. However, lack of blinding in most studies and other design and measurement issues are likely to have resulted in overestimation of effect sizes in both groups. Further well-designed studies are needed.

WITHDRAWN: Revisiting the cholinergic hypothesis in Alzheimer's disease: Emerging evidence from translational and clinical research

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Re-Engineering Alzheimer Clinical Trials: Global Alzheimer's Platform Network

Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development is costly, time-consuming, and inefficient. Trial site functions, trial design, and patient recruitment for trials all require improvement. The Global Alzheimer Platform (GAP) was initiated in response to these challenges. Four GAP work streams evolved in the US to address different trial challenges: 1) registry-to-cohort web-based recruitment; 2) clinical trial site activation and site network construction (GAP-NET); 3) adaptive proof-of-concept clinical trial design; and 4) finance and fund raising. GAP-NET proposes to establish a standardized network of continuously funded trial sites that are highly qualified to perform trials (with established clinical, biomarker, imaging capability; certified raters; sophisticated management system. GAP-NET will conduct trials for academic and biopharma industry partners using standardized instrument versions and administration. Collaboration with the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) European Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease (EPAD) program, the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) and other similar international initiatives will allow conduct of global trials. GAP-NET aims to increase trial efficiency and quality, decrease trial redundancy, accelerate cohort development and trial recruitment, and decrease trial costs. The value proposition for sites includes stable funding and uniform training and trial execution; the value to trial sponsors is decreased trial costs, reduced time to execute trials, and enhanced data quality. The value for patients and society is the more rapid availability of new treatments for AD.

Comparing recruitment, retention, and safety reporting among geographic regions in multinational Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Most Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants multinationally. Yet, few data exist to guide investigators and sponsors regarding the types of patients enrolled in these studies and whether participant characteristics vary by region.

METHODS

We used data derived from four multinational phase III trials in mild to moderate AD to examine whether regional differences exist with regard to participant demographics, safety reporting, and baseline scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). We assigned 31 participating nations to 7 geographic regions: North America, South America/Mexico, Western Europe/Israel, Eastern Europe/Russia, Australia/South Africa, Asia, and Japan.

RESULTS

North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Australia/South Africa enrolled similar proportions of men, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers, and participants with spouse study partners, whereas Asia, Eastern Europe/Russia, and South America/Mexico had lower proportions for these variables. North America and South America/Mexico enrolled older subjects, whereas Asia and South America/Mexico enrolled less-educated participants than the remaining regions. Approved AD therapy use differed among regions (range: 73% to 92%) and was highest in North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Japan. Dual therapy was most frequent in North America (48%). On the MMSE, North America, Western Europe/Israel, Japan, and Australia/South Africa had higher (better) scores, and Asia, South America/Mexico, and Eastern Europe/Russia had lower scores. Eastern Europe/Russia had more impaired ADAS-cog11 scores than all other regions. Eastern Europe/Russia and South America/Mexico had more impaired scores for the ADCS-ADL and the CDR-SB. Mean scores for the CDR-SB in Asia were milder than all regions except Japan. NPI scores were lower in Asia and Japan than in all other regions. Participants in North America and Western Europe/Israel reported more adverse events than those in Eastern Europe/Russia and Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that trial populations differ across geographic regions on most baseline characteristics and that multinational enrollment is associated with sample heterogeneity. The data provide initial guidance with regard to the regional differences that contribute to this heterogeneity and are important to consider when planning global trials.

Alzheimer's disease progression by geographical region in a clinical trial setting

INTRODUCTION

To facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology.

METHODS

Four similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).

RESULTS

Regions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00594568 - IDENTITY. Registered 11 January 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00762411 - IDENTITY2. Registered 26 September 2008 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 - EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 - EXPEDITION2. Registered 18 May 2009.

Globalization of Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies are increasingly being tested in global clinical trials. A search of ClincalTrials.gov revealed that of 269 currently active trials, 28% are currently being conducted in the United States; the majority of trials and the majority of trial sites are ex-US. The US has the largest number of trial sites of any single country; cumulatively, nearly half of all sites are outside the US. The US conducts more trials in all phases of drug development but has a greater proportion of phase 3 trials. The increasing importance of global participants in clinical trials emphasizes the importance of considering the ethnic and international factors that may influence trial outcome. The International Conference on Harmonization guidelines divide ethnic factors that may affect drug development into intrinsic and extrinsic influences. These include language, cultural factors, educational levels, the general level of health and standard of care, as well as nutrition and diet. Ethnic influences on pharmacokinetics are known for some metabolic pathways. The biology of AD may also differ among the world's populations. The frequency of the apolipoprotein e4 allele, a major risk factor for AD, differs internationally. Genetic variations might also affect inflammatory, excitotoxic, and oxidative components of AD. Diagnostic standards and experience vary from country to country. Levels of practitioner training and experience, diagnostic approaches to AD, and attitudes regarding aging and AD may differ. Experience and sophistication with regard to clinical trial conduct also vary within and between countries. Experience with conducting the necessary examinations, as well as the linguistic and cultural validity of instrument translations, may affect trial outcomes. Operational and regulatory aspects of clinical trials vary and provide important barriers to seamless conduct of multiregional clinical trials. Collection and testing of biological samples, continuous provision of drug substance, and protection of the integrity of supply lines may be difficult in some international circumstances. Attention to these potential influences on clinical trials will determine the success of global drug development programs and the utility of global trials for developing new AD therapeutics.

Treating the periphery to ameliorate neurodegenerative diseases

Abnormalities in the kynurenine pathway are associated with neurodegenerative disorders. Zwilling et al. (2011) show that inhibition of kynurenine 3-monooxygenase in the body's periphery leads to an increase in kyneuric acid, a neuroprotective compound, in the brain. This intervention ameliorates neurodegeneration in mouse models of Alzheimer's disease and Huntington's disease.